Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?

from the making-the-argument dept

For many years I’ve argued that the economics of abundance is not a moral issue. This is in response to the typical moral and ethical arguments in favor of things like excessive copyright or patent law, with normative claims about how we must protect artists’ or inventors’ creations for moral reasons, in that it would somehow be “unfair” to have others make use of their creations or inventions. My argument, in response, has always been that the role of morality is in determining a different level of fairness, it’s determining the allocation of harm. In other words, moral questions come up when there is a choice over who gets harmed. If you’re in a situation where no one gets harmed, then there should be no moral question. So, in approaching an issue like intellectual property, my argument is that if you can create a solution in which the economics allow a greatly increased opportunity for everyone, then you preempt the moral question. Since everyone has a chance to be better off, if you understand the economics and apply it properly, then the only issue is one of economics — how to best achieve that goal — rather than morality.

However, if it’s true that by doing away with the idea of intellectual property, you create greater opportunities for everyone, could you make the argument that intellectual property laws themselves are immoral or unethical in that they are actually what makes everyone worse off? Could you make the argument that by restricting the use of certain resources and restricting freedom of expression, those laws lead to unethical limitations? Put another way, if intellectual property is causing actual harm, then you could make the claim that there is a moral issue in discussing them — in that the laws of intellectual property, by themselves, are immoral. That is, if taking away IP causes no direct harm, then there’s no moral issue to discuss. But, if leaving them in place does cause harm, then that is a moral issue worth considering.

It’s really not something that I had thought about, but Stephan Kinsella points us to a recent talk given by David Koepsell, who not so long ago wrote a book, Who Owns You?, all about the serious problems in patenting genes. I’ve actually had a few email conversations with Koepsell over the past few months, and it’s worth paying attention to what he has to say. He’s very deliberate and careful in his work, supporting his positions with deep levels of analysis and evidence. This talk appears to be a new area that he’s taking on, trying to make the case that all intellectual property is, by its very nature, unethical:

Now, I will be the first to admit that the talk itself is a bit dry at parts and rough around the edges, and at times seems to go off on tangents. But it certainly has some potential. The argument uses different language than we use here to describe some points, but they map back to the points we discuss on a regular basis pretty easily. He talks about the difference between real property and intellectual property, in that real property concepts predate the law — predate “institutions” — because of the brute facts of the situation. If you possess a physical good, there need not be any law saying that you are excluding others from using it. You have it. But if it’s an idea or an expression, you need an institution or a law to try to exclude it from others. Effectively, he’s distinguishing between what we refer to as scarce goods and infinite goods. Scarce goods, by their nature, are rivalrous and excludable. Infinite goods are not.

He also discusses that the concept of “the commons” is too simplistic, and that there are different kinds of commons. Again, there are the commons that are created through legal or institutional necessity — such as national parks or the highway system. Without the institutions, then others would likely claim that land via possession. Keeping them as a commons is the legal attempt to avoid a “tragedy of the commons,” where that property is allocated inefficiently. But, he argues, there’s another type of commons as well: a commons that itself is normal that cannot be enclosed and possessed outside of the law. And that includes things like your genes, or any expression. He refers to the former as a “commons by choice,” and the latter as a “commons by necessity,” which is an interesting concept.

Thus, the key argument he makes is that intellectual property is an attempt to lock up the “commons by necessity,” in the false belief that it is the same thing as the “commons by choice.” And while he doesn’t directly make this final point, what’s clearly implied is this: the purpose of a commons-by-choice is to avoid the tragedy of the commons and to better allocate a scarce resource by letting everyone share it. But when we try to take a commons-by-necessity and pretend there’s a tragedy of the commons when it might not exist, we actually make the allocation of resources significantly less efficient. And making a choice to limit the efficiency of a space — such as by limiting your rights to expression or your rights to innovate or, perhaps worst of all, the rights to your own genes, you are creating harm — and that harm is immoral.

It’s definitely an argument worth considering.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
342 Comments
Tom says:

Gratuitous Use of Apple

I just couldn’t help but notice about his usage of a VERY IP-anal company like Apple. Oh well, I guess the “Apple” quite literally doesn’t fall very far from the tree, no? Anyway, glad to see that there are people tackling these thorny issues that may end up in the courts for hair-splitting elaboration by lawyers anyway. God bless case law.

Anonymous Coward says:

“Keeping them as a commons is the legal attempt to avoid a “tragedy of the commons,” where that property is allocated inefficiently.”

The fixed costs of everyone having their own park is tremendous. but the variable costs of each additional person using a park once the fixed costs of having that park have been paid are minor. So in a sense you benefit from economies of scale.

Anonymous Coward says:

I think the word he wants to use is taxonomy.

GREAT VIDEO. PEOPLE NEED TO PASS THE LINK ALONG, BURN IT TO 200 DVD’S AND PASS IT ALONG TO EVERY RELEVANT POLITICIAN POSSIBLE!!! GREAT VIDEO!!!! It will have a huge impact if widely viewed, people need to watch this video!!! For those who don’t have Internet access, pass them a DVD or something.

Anonymous Coward says:

I keep reading arguments like this but I think these writers are ignoring some very important facts. The argument that ip rights are harmful to the public ignores that people are motivated by money. The vast majority of advances in medicine, science, technology, arts, etc. are made because people want to profit from them. If you want to truly hurt the public then take away that monetary motivation for advances.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: A few advances without copyright

Isaac Newton
Arabian use of 0 in mathematics
Egyptian pyramids (slave labor notwithstanding)
Roman road building and conquest
Latin use in law
Penicillin
———————————–

The list goes on and on.

Regardless, we don’t need copyright to function for everything. Sometimes it gets in the way as with the inventor of the FM Radio and RCA.

Source

Dave (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Yes money is a powerful motivator, but it only works short term. Once you monetise something people only look to make as much money in as short a period of time as possible. I would say there are other motivators besides money. Look at the space race. Think of all the technology gained from that exercise of national pride. I think we could go a lot further without doing things only for money. Universities are constantly competing for kudos and push their staff to perform relevant research, not for money but for reputation. When money gets a back seat in research, i think much more diverse outcomes can be achieved.

chris (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The argument that ip rights are harmful to the public ignores that people are motivated by money. The vast majority of advances in medicine, science, technology, arts, etc. are made because people want to profit from them.

and IP laws centralize the ability to profit in the hands of large corporations.

which do you think would make more money for more people? a large company with a monopoly on an invention using lawsuits to keep others out of the market, or a large number of entrepreneurial start-ups competing on equal terms?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The socialist position is that the government gets to decide who gets to do what, which is basically the pro patent position where the government grants monopolies saying that only you can do X unless someone else gets a license from you.

and pro IP people have yet to present a shred of evidence supporting their religion, the only thing they present is speculation and they ignore the mountains of evidence that disagrees with them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The founding fathers understood that IP laws are not free market capitalistic. Adam Smith even understood that it should be used scarcely and considered government regulations to be a necessary evil.

Free market capitalism mostly just applies to physical objects and not what people do with those objects and the ideas they implement into those objects. To distort the true meaning of free market capitalism is disingenuous at best.

No one is saying that the government shouldn’t grant ownership of anything. We’re just saying that the government shouldn’t grant exclusive privileges over an idea. Two people can own two different objects that implement the same ideas (ie: two copies of a book) without anyone being able to exclude anyone else from making copies of the text in that book.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

But copyright and patents do not concern things in your possession, it is the power to prevent anyone other than you from manufacturing their own copies of whatever type of good you hold them for.

To call them property is at best a failure of logic, and intellectually dishonesty at worst.

David Koepsell (user link) says:

Re: Re:

Actually, if you watch the lecture, you’ll see that I argue that any regime that, for instance, outlawed private property in land and moveables (like the Soviet Union did) would be unjust (see around minute 16:00 to 17:00). This is explicitly anti-socialist. State-granted monopoly rights over the expression of ideas (IP laws) are more socialist than a truly free market in expressions. I favor completely unregulated markets in ideas and their expressions as being most efficient.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

free market is often a regulated market. just as free speech is not an absolute, free market is not either. there are always some restrictions and rules, as they help commerce and trade to happen.

the discussion here is more of a moral question, which is where the socialists tend to sow their seeds of discontent. it is the hugo chavez / fidel castro mentality, where the products of a free but regulated market are treated as ‘immoral’ and against the will of the common man, and thus bad. socialists generally remove the ‘immoral’ part of business by turning them into state owned / state run organizations with no profit motivations, only one to serve the people. as has been shown in most socialist – communist setups, those companies end up with no motivation at all, and no longer serve the people at all.

looking at ip as ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ is just the start of a socialist discussion. should all ideas be shared, as it somehow benefits the common man? in theory as a one sided argument, it sounds great. but as mentioned above, when the profit motivation is removed, history has shown that the advancements stop as well. the result is little actual benefit for the people, because the advancements (new ip) no longer happens at the same pace.

in the real world, 10% of something is better than 100% of nothing. branding ip ‘immoral’ and removing the long profit motivations of inventors, researchers, and developers leaves you with 100% of nothing, comrade.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“when the profit motivation is removed”

The assumption here is that patents are needed for such motivation to exist. The evidence for this is non existent.

“branding ip ‘immoral’ and removing the long profit motivations of inventors, researchers, and developers leaves you with 100% of nothing, comrade.”

Evidence? Plenty of advancement occurred without IP and with less IP than what we currently have. To say that all advancement requires IP is simply false, in fact, IP only seems to get in the way of advancement.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“The assumption here is that patents are needed for such motivation to exist. The evidence for this is non existent.” – are you kidding? please examine the drug industry. they spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop drugs, and only a few pass all the tests and make it to market. without a profit motivation, what would their desire be to toss that sort of money around? answer: none.

the other answer is like everything else: if you let the government take it over (aka, socialism heading to communism), then there is no need for a profit motivation. but then will things be done expediently? just think government work, and go from there. you will understand why its a non-starter.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

are you kidding?

No. Very, very serious.

please examine the drug industry.

I have. In great detail.

they spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop drugs, and only a few pass all the tests and make it to market. without a profit motivation, what would their desire be to toss that sort of money around? answer: none.

So many false assumptions/premises in the above, I hardly know where to start, but let’s pick a few highlights:

* Who said *anything* about removing the “profit motivation”? No one. You are falsely assuming that IP is the only way to make profit off of drugs. It’s not. This has been proven time and time again. Why you continue to insist it’s the case in the face of so much evidence to the contrary is downright odd.

* The “hundreds of millions of dollars” number is false and misleading — though the industry loves it. Merrill Goozner did a nice study of the numbers, and found the real number is more like $30 million. Nice of you to fall for pharma marketing claims as they seek monopolies to keep your drug prices high.

* Even if it’s $30 million (or higher) that *is* still a lot of money, but again, you are wrong in assuming the only way to make money is through patents. There are plenty of other methods to make money if you’re smart.

* Certainly, part of the issue is the cost of clinical trials, but the real problem is that it costs so much, but that we put that cost on the pharma companies. To date, all that’s really done is lead them to cheat, putting lives in danger. We need a better system for handling safety testing for drugs that takes it out of the hands of the companies who develop the drugs, and you’ll save a ton of money that way.

the other answer is like everything else: if you let the government take it over

No one’s suggested that. That’s called a strawman.

but then will things be done expediently? just think government work, and go from there. you will understand why its a non-starter.

Really? You think the only other option is the gov’t taking it over?

And your claims that even that is not expedient is proven false if you just look at where drug discovery comes from today. Almost all important drug discovery in the recent past has come from universities, funded by NiH grants. There’s huge reputational value in gettng there first, so there are races on to get stuff discovered.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

an amazingly long non-answer. why would you think there would still be a profit motivation where all of your competitors can copy you without development cost?

“The “hundreds of millions of dollars” number is false and misleading — though the industry loves it. Merrill Goozner did a nice study of the numbers, and found the real number is more like $30 million. Nice of you to fall for pharma marketing claims as they seek monopolies to keep your drug prices high.” – that is the price for any single drug, but it is misleading because many drugs do not make it to market. if two drugs make it to clinical trials and one fails, the effective costs of one drug to market doubled (to 60 million). the reality is that they often start with dozens of potentials and it narrows down to a single product. most importantly, you are against trying to avoid discussing the main point by going off picking nits. the number is irrelevant, the concept is extremely important.

“Really? You think the only other option is the gov’t taking it over?” – if pharma isnt going to spend the money to develop new drugs, who will? the answer discussed in comments here before is the idea of government funded research. who else has that type of money with no desire for a return on investment?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“that is the price for any single drug, but it is misleading because many drugs do not make it to market.”

Do you honestly think that these studies would not take this into account and that you are the only one capable of considering this and that the researchers and scientists who spend time studying this are idiots?

“the number is irrelevant, the concept is extremely important.”

How is the number irrelevant?

“who else has that type of money with no desire for a return on investment?”

Again assuming that patents are required to receive a return on investment. Google spent a billion dollars on Youtube yet anyone can copy Youtube.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“please examine the drug industry.”

The drug industry is a joke. The drug industry is a perfect example of what happens when patents take over. Before patents were as prominent as they are now innovation was very abundant. Now that patents have taken over the drug industry true innovation is a very rare scarcity (ie: all you see is me too drugs). Not only that but the FDA and the government that supports the drug industry is as coerced as the industry itself (ie: look at the Pfizer scandal and how their too big to fail argument gets them away from statutory punishment). The U.S. FDA almost only accepts industry funded and conducted studies and is among the most corrupt organizations in existence. Heck, even many of its own employees agree.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If “free” means “regulated” then freedom = slavery.
There’s a big difference between self-regulation, which is consistent with freedom, and regulations imposed from a “sovereign,” which leads to tyranny. In a truly free market, the only regulations are self-imposed and freely accepted, not govt-sponsored.

nini says:

real innovative ppl aren't motivated by money

But by passion,sense of beauty or even love,
IP works only for the small minded ppl whom we can do with out.
When information flows freely and openly the “real” property rights get the protection it deserves in forms of justice,safer existence and equality.
IP is immoral and there is nothing that can stop society from getting to a moneyless economy which will be much more efficient,resilient,stable than the stupid, senseless system that anyone can see doesn’t work any more.

Andrew F (profile) says:

Utilitarianism

I would be careful with the utilitarianism. You don’t want to come off as “it’s okay to screw over one guy (the IP rightholder) if it helps everyone else.” I think your actual argument is that it’s not necessary to screw over the one guy (if he uses a different business model) to help everyone else.

The problem though is that these terms are all relative. If you take away half a billionaire’s fortune, his standard of living will probably not be harmed one bit. At the same time however, you have literally inflicted $500 million worth of harm on him. Not sure if you really want to get into that debate though. Economic debates are relatively simple compared to the shit show that debates about morality are.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Utilitarianism vs morality

To me, when you talk about morality of IP the point is the effect on the IP holder. Doing things that are immoral damages the person who does them. That is the difference between morality and utilitarianism. If a Billionaire gives away half his fortune he will be better off morally, and happier. Most major religions would go further and say that if he gave away ALL his fortune he would be happier still. To me IP harms those who hold it more than those who are restricted by it. When I read the posts of the IP maximalists they don’t seem like happy people.

In contrast Mike, even though he often posts “complaining” stories, seems to be optimistic and well adjusted.

Richard Corsale (profile) says:

Re: um ... i think you've missed the point

I think you miss a few points actually. First of all, the no IP argument is not really about NO IP, there isn’t much of a movement in that direction. When the intellectual body starts speaking out against IP and they use the concept of zero IP, it’s not literal. It’s used to illustrate how zero IP is more just than the draconian direction that IP has taken to this day.

Lets use your example of virtual goods.

1. Gold or “virtual goods” are in fact a scarcity in WOW, they release these goods with a real economy in mind. If they flooded the game with goods or let you just copy them they would be worthless no one would pay for them. So that argument is moot. Even if it were not, Virtual gold has NO IP and it is clearly valuable. So it doesn’t work both ways.

2.Your assertion that ideas deserve patent protection is not even remotely valid. Ideas have never been patentable for one very distinct reason… everyone of us has the same ideas. The idea is not the invention… concepts do not provide revenue, implementations do. Concept patents do nothing other than create litigation and slow/derail progress.

Lets rethink some of these arguments…

Rob Al (profile) says:

Re: Re: um ... i think you've missed the point

thanks for your considered reply.

in part 1, i think we’re saying the same thing to begin with i.e. the goods in WoW are scarce and that allowing free duplication removes their value. But isn’t there IP in specific products in WoW. For example, the “Mr T Night Elf Mohawk Grenade” that I see advertised? Doesn’t it represent an implementation of an idea, and allowing others to execute that idea (create their own grenades) without licence would devalue it.

RE: part 2: i think this is simply me writing it quickly and not properly reading it. Of course, I mean creations, such as music, or a design. I’ll correct that.

Overall I think though that we agree … IP laws do need revision as they are slowly creeping away from their original intention.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: WoW is a red herring

I think you cannot transfer concepts from games like WoW to the real world.

WoW is a game. Games are governed by rules. The purpose of the rules is to allow creative tensions to arise in the game so that the game itself is satisfying to play. For example in tennis there are rules about not hitting the ball so that it falls outside a line painted on the ground. However no one suggests that such a rule should be applied in real life simply because it fulfils a useful function in tennis.

Richard Corsale (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: um ... i think you've missed the point

The “Mr T Night Elf Mohawk Grenade” (mtmg) is an excellent example for extraction. Let’s say we have two scenarios. One is WoW cast to the real world. The other, is WoW as it sits.

Real WoW: The mtmg is a new toy made by Mattel. What keeps someone from making and selling mtmgs? Certainly not patents, there have been countless toy grenades, and that wouldn’t make it past the sitting clerk. No, the only thing protecting it would be the licensing of Mt T. which is a trademark and some countries allow styles and designs to be copyrighted or patented. Now if someone wanted to create the Fro-hawk Hipster Grenade, they would/should have every right to do so. However if we flip over to our virtual counterpart.

Virtual WoW: Ssuddenly it’s an invention!! Not because it’s inventive or even innovative, rather JUST because it’s based in software. The lamentation of non-practicing entities (trolls) and patent attorneys echo in unison “Just because it’s intangible doesn’t mean it’s not an invention!”, and so they get a patent on something like “grenades in a virtual world” (no seriously). So, for the next twenty years the industry wonders if that patent would be exercised or if it’s even valid. And so they try to avoid putting grenades in their games, and worry about the liability of letting users make their own content as they would be the clear target in any silly litigation. On the other hand, if they allowed user created content, I’m sure it would outsell the mtmg in aggregate, and it would spur insane X-hawk grenade innovation as they have to step up or go home (free markets and such)…

The mtmg would also covered by copyright, which is a protection NOT offered to a real MTMG.. (so is it a copyright until the last artist that rendered it dies plus 70 years?)

Either way, those that like to use “real world” analogies to prop up their bread and butter arguments for; idea/software/process patents, generally hate these points and try to obfuscate them with false dilemmas, crooked logic and even outright lies.

Essentially, NO you shouldn’t be able to make mtmgs especially to compete with those that created them. The exact implementation may be protected, but the abstract concept must remain free. That is, if the market is to evolve at it’s own pace and not just a pace less threatening to corporate bureaucracy.

hxa7241 says:

Re: Re: Re: um ... i think you've missed the point

> Doesn’t it represent an implementation of an idea, and allowing others to execute that idea (create their own grenades) without licence would devalue it.

It would devalue it in terms of exchange value, but its intrinsic value — what it is good for itself — is unaltered.

Copying something that is good in itself is actually a *gain*, since there is then more good available to use.

This is the important point. The ‘loss’ in intellectual monopoly is wholly dependent on the context of a system. It is not an absolute loss, but a loss of monopoly advantage to particular participants.

CharlesGrossman (profile) says:

Moral Rights

Thinking about whether intellectual property is unethical, you probably already considered this: In most of the world, recognition that government-granted economic privileges aren’t based on morality seems to be the basis for distinguishing between “moral rights” of authorship (like the right of an author to be correctly credited for his or her work) and “economic rights”. But of course most moral rights aren’t recognized in the U.S.

Jim says:

IMO, the very idea of intellectual property is a misguided bastardization of what the founding fathers envisioned for patents. Historically, inventors had no inherent right to a government sponsored monopoly. Patents were devised as a quid pro quo between inventors and society. Expose your invention and get exclusive rights to the future profits in exchange. Intellectual property lawyers have done a good job creating a belief that whoever runs to the patent office first with some obvious invention should get a government sponsored monopoly. That certainly wasn’t Jefferson’s view.

Today, the overwhelming majority of patents are obvious and often don’t involve much research at all. For these, society is getting nothing in exchange for handing out that monopoly.

We should recast our thinking around patents back to the original quid pro quo model that our patent system was founded on. Inventors should be granted special rights only to the extent that society gets something in exchange.

For the incentive system to work well for society, rewards must be directly connected the research and development effort. IMO, the system would be better if it was built around tax credits, rather than government granted monopolies.

Jim

David Koepsell (user link) says:

elaboration, and a link.

Since this talk, and due to some excellent discussions I had with students at TU Delft, I have since elaborated my theory of the Commons by Necessity. There are two sub-types: the Commons by Logical Necessity (like natural laws and ideas) and Commons by Practical Necessity (like all the oxygen in the atmosphere, as opposed to elemental oxygen). Commons by practical necessity could theoretically be enclosed, but it would be practically nearly impossible. Here is a link also to the slide-show that accompanies the talk as well:

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: still shilling?

“Other societies through the ages already figured out the property issue. Ever hear of the USSR? Do the names Marx, Lenin, and Gorbachev ring a bell?”

Before tossing Gorbachev into that list I might suggest you refresh your history. Oh, you left out Stalin.

What determines morality of a certain bit of IP varies, of course, but, I’d suggest the ability to patent what occurs naturally in nature fits the definition of immoral.

I’d further suggest that open ended patents such as the one-click (and far too many others) is also immoral. (As well as an affront to capitalism, btw)

I would suggest that effective never ending copyright is immoral. And if I hear one more time that it’s to protect the creator of a work I will be very ill. (MPAA, RIAA and most publishing houses have made most of their money off ripping off artists rather than supporting them.)

Still, just what that has to do with the badly failed experiment with Marxist-Leninism is beyond me particularly as it gets tossed about as a false shibboleth by folks like you who have no rational, valid argument or contribution to make.

I can only see one shill here and I’m replying to it.

Gene Cavanaugh (profile) says:

Is IP immoral?

Same-old, same-old – change everything to “good-bad” and ignore that life is analog, not digital, and you can show that anything is “good” or “bad”, by its very nature!

The reason for IP laws is that our founding fathers were well aware of the problems of NO IP laws! Of course, now we are well aware of the problems of IP law abuse (we are in a time of SEVERE abuse!). At this time (and for a short time, until the lack of IP became abused!) we might be better off without IP laws, but MUCH better would be the intelligent administration of them (of course, that would take campaign finance reform, and the American people are definitely not intelligent enough for that!).

The thing is, it is not a problem of “yes-no”, it is a much more difficult problem of “how much?”.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Is IP immoral?

I think one has to distinguish between patents and copyrights here. Copyright can exist without any legal framework other than contract law. Existing copyright law is as much a restriction of copyright as it is an enabler. Without the law there need be no time limit no rights of first sale, no fair use etc etc. This it is inevitable that there must be some law regulating the contracts when works are distributed.
Patent law, on the other, hand creates obligations on parties that have never dealt with the patent holder since there is no independent invention defence.

AW says:

Re: Re: Is IP immoral?

Good points, but copyright is not really a contract if it can be broken by only one side at will, which is what has happened. If a child fails to live up to their responsibilities then we punish the child, if it’s an adult we call it “business”. It’s the same with the phone, cable and utility contracts. They change them to suit themselves and the consumer foots the bill because there is no real market pressure.
To alleviate this we need to free the restraints on the market and let consumers decide. The businesses that offer the best products will always win and there is always a competitive pressure to innovate, which is far more productive than monetary incentive,which is sponsored by our current laws.

Darryl says:

Such a poor understanding of morals and ethics

For a start,

A simple question for you Mike.

How can something or an object, or property be unethical or immoral ?

People can be unethical, and immoral but an object or thing or property cannot.

Can you understand that Mike ?? Anyone ??

Im sure the catholic church during the crusaids, and the witch hunting days, felt and believed their acts were both morally and ethically correct. Im also sure Pol Pot or Hitler felt their acts were moral as well.

IP rights, copyright and patents, are not in themselves moral or immoral, Nor does IP restrict the distribution of information, or the progress of science.

ALL IT DOES DO, is provide a level of protection to the owner of the property (physical or intelectual), do allow the owner to make his works availble for others to use and enjoy.

But not to copy or profit from his work.

Its just that simple, I dont know why you have so much trouble with it. And why you think that if IP and copyright laws went away, the same people who create and distribute content with the security of laws to protect theft of their product. Too allow them to still distribute it.

What is the alternative?

Im sure you can work it out, it happens in electronics engineering all the time, the IP will be locked up, physically, not not made available at all.

If you have ever opened up some electronics equipment and found the circuit encased in a solid block of special potting solution, like rock.

You cant see the circuit layout, you cant repair, modify it, you cant see how it works, and you can do anything.

Because the manufacturer and designer does not want you to steal their idea and design.
They would not have to do that if they got patent protection, but if they fail to get patent or other IP protections on their design, THEY LOCK IT UP.

You dont get to see it at all, NEVER.. how again is that better ? Its NOT.

They even sell microcontroller IC’s that you blow a fuse bit on them once they are programmed, so that you cannot access, view or modify the code. Locking you out physically, forever.

That would not be necessary if there were not people willing to take IP that they do not have the rights to, forcing producers to use other methods to protect their work, AS WELL as copyright and patents (IP) protection.

So is it immoral to not get what you want, and to not be able to do what you like with what you want.. How sad.

Welcome to the real world, its full of laws and rules, and some of them protect people from other people.

Ethics and morals has nothing to do with property, it’s to do with your personal value system.

And what you seem to try to describe as a moral and ethical argument is what is called.

_________

Hedonism

Hedonism posits that the principle ethic is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. There are several schools of Hedonist thought ranging from those advocating the indulgence of even momentary desires to those teaching a pursuit of spiritual bliss. In their consideration of consequences, they range from those advocating self-gratification regardless of the pain and expense to others, to those stating that the most ethical pursuit maximizes pleasure and happiness for the most people.[4]

(wiki)

I think Mike is into the “abvocating self-gratification regardless of the pain and expense to others”.

What do you think,

And mike, How can some “thing” or property in itself be moral or immoral. Do you actually understand the terms, or done ANY research on the subject ?

How is your moral compass ?

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Such a poor understanding of morals and ethics/electronic engineering

If you have ever opened up some electronics equipment and found the circuit encased in a solid block of special potting solution, like rock.

Yup – but the purpose of potting is NOT to stop you modifying it – it is to make the circuit robust:

From Wikipedia
“In electronics, potting is a process of filling a complete electronic assembly with a solid compound for resistance to shock and vibration, and for exclusion of moisture and corrosive agents”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Such a poor understanding of morals and ethics

IP rights, copyright and patents, are not in themselves moral or immoral,

It’s the granting and enforcement of such that is immoral. Were you really that confused as to what was actually being discussed or were you just pretending to be so? The former would indicate that you may not be particularly intelligent, while the latter would indicate immoral dishonesty.

Nor does IP restrict the distribution of information, or the progress of science.

Have you missed all the examples to the contrary that have been discussed here on Techdirt? Really?

Im sure the catholic church during the crusaids, and the witch hunting days, felt and believed their acts were both morally and ethically correct. Im also sure Pol Pot or Hitler felt their acts were moral as well.

These days it’s the copyright and patent supporters.

ALL IT DOES DO, is provide a level of protection to the owner of the property (physical or intelectual), do allow the owner to make his works availble for others to use and enjoy.

No, that is not all it does. A person can reveal his ideas without copyrights or patents and to claim otherwise is dishonest. And you’re trying to argue about morality? A lot of people think dishonesty is immoral.

If you have ever opened up some electronics equipment and found the circuit encased in a solid block of special potting solution, like rock.

I’ve seen plenty of patented circuits encased in potting compound anyway, so why are you pretending otherwise? Again, are you being ignorant or dishonest?

Because the manufacturer and designer does not want you to steal their idea and design.

Talk about morality, there you go being dishonest again. Their design would not be stolen. It might be copied, but they would still have it, so it would not be stolen from them.

So is it immoral to not get what you want, and to not be able to do what you like with what you want.. How sad.

Dishonesty is immoral, and you’ve demonstrated plenty of that. If you’re what “IP laws” breed, then the sooner we get rid of them, the better.

How is your moral compass ?

Perhaps you should be asking yourself that.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Such a poor understanding of morals and ethics

How can something or an object, or property be unethical or immoral ?

Do you consider slavery immoral? I do.

ALL IT DOES DO, is provide a level of protection to the owner of the property (physical or intelectual), do allow the owner to make his works availble for others to use and enjoy.

And, in the process, it can massively restrict the right of others. And it is that aspect that Koepsell is highlighting. Why do you ignore that?

What is the alternative?

Well, considering for a dozen years we’ve been showing examples of innovation and business models without relying on IP, I’d say we’ve got a whole ton of alternatives. You showed up here maybe 2 months ago. Perhaps you should look through the archives a bit.

Im sure you can work it out, it happens in electronics engineering all the time, the IP will be locked up, physically, not not made available at all.

That’s the theory. The reality says the opposite. All you need to do is look at history in places where there is weak or no IP laws to find that the opposite of your assumption is true. Why? Because here in the real world, rather than Darryl-theory-world, companies realize that they can build better business models by leveraging abundant ideas — and part of that means even sharing those ideas with others, so that the larger market can result from multiple players in that market.

Because the manufacturer and designer does not want you to steal their idea and design.
They would not have to do that if they got patent protection, but if they fail to get patent or other IP protections on their design, THEY LOCK IT UP.

Again, when they realize they’re actually better off THEMSELVES by not locking it up, that problem mostly goes away. The rest can usually be reverse engineered…

And mike, How can some “thing” or property in itself be moral or immoral. Do you actually understand the terms, or done ANY research on the subject ?

Ad hominem. Darryl, the other day I proved your argument on fair use to be totally and completely wrong. Now you have resorted to name calling. If this keeps up, it will not be worth discussing this with you any further.

How is your moral compass ?

Pointed due north, as always. Why is it that you seek to restrict knowledge from people?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Such a poor understanding of morals and ethics

“Well, considering for a dozen years we’ve been showing examples of innovation and business models without relying on IP, I’d say we’ve got a whole ton of alternatives. You showed up here maybe 2 months ago. Perhaps you should look through the archives a bit.” – talk done to your readers much?

mike when we discuss alternatives, you often point out that you are not pointing to solutions, just things that have appeared to work for some people. wouldnt you agree that changing the entire regulatory frame work of the free market overnight on the basis of a ‘moral’ objection is somewhat more involved than playing business model tiddly winks?

“Ad hominem. Darryl, the other day I proved your argument on fair use to be totally and completely wrong. Now you have resorted to name calling. If this keeps up, it will not be worth discussing this with you any further.” – insult your readers much?

“Pointed due north, as always. Why is it that you seek to restrict knowledge from people?” – why is it that you seek to discourage people from investing in new ideas, and furthering knowledge?

Anonymous Coward says:

IP laws, the way they are today, are completely useless. The only thing they are good for is provide a way of making money without producing anything useful.

Here is an easy way to abuse it:

1- Produce something worthwhile (your initial investment). It could be a song, a book or a movie, but the simpler the better.

2- Copyright it (duh!).

3- Generate hype for your product. This will get people to buy it. The goal here is to the value of the IP, not make CD sales!

4- Once the value peaks, sell the rights to some dope. Make sure to make him pay millions. Don’t forget the royalties!

5- Buy some new (cheap) IP (no, no, no you moron. Don’t make new ones, that’s hard work). The cheaper the better.

6- Fix it a little and claim you made it. The “fame” momentum you already have will benefit that IP. Go to 3.

It’s easy to exploit. With a little work, you don’t have to work very hard to make a few mil. AND you can always license “Best of” packs! Oh, what a marvelous system. It’s just like the stock market…

Vic Kley says:

IP Ethics a Mickey Mouse Argument

Mike and Kinsela’s world view if implemented is the following truly unethical world, where dog eats dog while government stays out of the fight and just collects taxes.

Obviously Walt is spinning in his grave to think that Mike and friends will declare Disney’s trademark, and copyrights null and void. All works of art and writing, including song writing are only ideas. No IP, no copyrights on movies, operas, pictures taken on battlefields, novels or grand works taking years, even decades of the creator’s life all free to anyone to copy and sell at a light mark-up over the media and copying costs or essentially the $0.50 that buys you new release DVDs from street vendors in most Chinese cities.

Oh and that process or method for the new miracle drug, or velcro, or touch pads. That set of details constituting the invention of a new thing its not going to made public. If its very nature is that its public if sold it won’t be made public or even offered EVER. Those things which can be protected by secrecy will kept secret forever. Lawlessness means those who wish to protect their secrets and revenues will silence by any means those who challenge knowing there will be no day in court for there will be no law governing IP.

This whole argument is the plaything of blind academics eating food that IP law has provided them and publishing works with their names on them to take advantage of IP law insuring their credit and financial rewards. These same academic double standards under which their names on publications determine in part their wages and opportunities to advance within acadumia. The latest on these ethical beings by the way is that they now publish with tens of people named as authors- so many that anyone with a modicum of sense and experience knows that a coherent publication in a reasonable time would be impossible and indeed I’ve recently heard such academics under oath reveal that they did not write or even READ articles they are listed on!

In the world Mike would like we can paste his head on the body in the video attached to article and Mike can claim it. Why not? After all any claim to IP rights by Kinesela is unethical and therefor should be suppressed, even made a criminal act.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: IP Ethics a Mickey Mouse Argument

This whole argument is the plaything of blind academics eating food that IP law has provided them and publishing works with their names on them to take advantage of IP law insuring their credit and financial rewards.

Academics earn their money by giving live performances – by teaching students.
The research side is there to improve the quality of that teaching – and distributing the results of research (infinite goods) freely adds value to the teaching. It is exactly in line with Mike’s ideas.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: IP Ethics a Mickey Mouse Argument

In the world Mike would like we can paste his head on the body in the video attached to article and Mike can claim it. Why not? After all any claim to IP rights by Kinesela is unethical and therefor should be suppressed, even made a criminal act.

You elide together concepts that are actually quite different. There is no intellectual property in Shakespeare but is still unethical for me to claim authorship of Hamlet or to use a portion of his work in my own without attribution. Lying/misrepresentation and plagiarism are nothing to do with copyrights and patents. Abolishing copyrights and patents would not affect the moral or legal status of these acts in any way.

Trademarks are different, they do relate to misrepresentation and no one here is proposing their abolition, although we do observe that trademark holders sometimes go beyond what is necessary for the protection of the public.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: IP Ethics a Mickey Mouse Argument

Mike and Kinsela’s world view if implemented is the following truly unethical world, where dog eats dog while government stays out of the fight and just collects taxes.

I see. You prefer the world in which the gov’t picks the winners and losers?

Obviously Walt is spinning in his grave to think that Mike and friends will declare Disney’s trademark, and copyrights null and void.

Considering Walt was a big reuser and remixer of others works, I find that a bit unlikely.

As for trademark, we have explained already why trademark is not at all like copyright or patents, in that it is not about a specific privilege or monopoly, but about protecting consumers.

So I am all for trademarks in the scenarios in which they are used properly: in accurately designating the origin of a product. So, no, not saying take away the trademarks.

Oh and that process or method for the new miracle drug, or velcro, or touch pads. That set of details constituting the invention of a new thing its not going to made public. If its very nature is that its public if sold it won’t be made public or even offered EVER.

Interesting conjecture. If there were ANY proof whatsoever to back it up, you’d have a point. Tragically (for you) there is not. In fact, studies looking at societies with less or no IP have found just as much, if not more, innovation than similar societies with stronger IP. So, your theory is wrong.

Those things which can be protected by secrecy will kept secret forever.

Except very little can actually be kept secret.

This whole argument is the plaything of blind academics eating food that IP law has provided them and publishing works with their names on them to take advantage of IP law insuring their credit and financial rewards. These same academic double standards under which their names on publications determine in part their wages and opportunities to advance within acadumia.

Funny that you name both me and Kinsella, when neither of us are academics.

In the world Mike would like we can paste his head on the body in the video attached to article and Mike can claim it. Why not? After all any claim to IP rights by Kinesela is unethical and therefor should be suppressed, even made a criminal act.

Because that would be misleading and fraud, and it would quickly be discovered and my reputation would be harmed. You do still have reputation in a world without IP.

I’m surprised you don’t seem to recognize that.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: IP Ethics a Mickey Mouse Argument

First off with respect to old Walt, very few people mined classics that had come out of copyright and into the public domain as well and completely as he did. And as his company continues to do. Nothing wrong with that but I don’t think it’s enough to cause his bones to spin in his grave, somehow.

“All works of art and writing, including song writing are only ideas. No IP, no copyrights on movies, operas, pictures taken on battlefields, novels or grand works taking years, even decades of the creator’s life…”

Let’s just get one thing straight here. A large amount of the world’s literature and music was created well before copyright came along. Writers wrote, painters painted, composers composed and life went on. Fairly well, actually.

Most physical products, such as the touch pads you mentioned, are developed not to much because there’s a patent at the end of some golden rainbow but because of necessity. An itch to scratch as it were. You know, the light bulb, telephone and transistors. Sure they were patented (in an age where you actually had to produce a drawing of a working model of your “invention” to get a patent) but that did not stop progress or end innovation. And none of these things were developed for the express intention of getting rich. Sure, income was the result but it was not the driver nor what motivated the invention in the first place.

As for morality, as I’ve said, morality does come into it with certain patents, certain copyrights or attempts at either while, as Mike has said, economics is amoral (as is capitalism).

Patents which require no working specifications to be granted are, simply, immoral. Copyrights which exceed a single lifetime are, simply, immoral.

And, in a properly working system of copyright and patent law ideas cannot be protected because that was never the driver behind either idea. Nor should it be now.

There was an insult in the 1960s towards this kind of lame argument. Mickey Mouse. Wear it with pride.

Michael (profile) says:

Re: Re: IP Ethics a Mickey Mouse Argument

I completely agree.

Have you read the patent history of the light bulb? It is a pretty interesting story that highlights problems with the patent system – many point out that the patent system was likely a factor that slowed the development of a light bulb that could actually be used by consumers. And once one was created, there was patent litigation from an “inventor” that failed repeatedly to make something that could actually be sold.

It is worth looking it up – I think Mike had some related articles.

AW says:

Okay let’s wade into this fire and fun.

First off, people are only motivated by money for things that do not require cognitive thought. Good explanation here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

This is why I type this on a Linux operating system using an open sourced web browser and why I have contributed artwork to the public domain and have spent countless hours educating others for no cost. We are far more complex than a to b analogies.

While I agree with some of the positions that there are some very minimal advantages to IP, they are extremely limited and should only be used sparingly. The only thing that has happened due to increased IP is increased prices and fewer choices. Cable tv has 300 channels and almost all of them are similar offering almost the exact same material, why? Because it’s what consumers want? Doubtful or they wouldn’t have such a high turnover of shows. People like safe but different for television, ti’s the same with radio. All IP does is make it harder to give people what they want. In the world of music the only major innovation in the last 100 years has been the computer. Occasionally an instrument would be added before that but essentially it was voice, percussion strings or horn and now suddenly this is so original it’s worth protection? Okay let’s give protection to the people who created the computer…oh right publicly funded military projects…

This whole notion of innovative thought is absolutely ridiculous. Sure there are innovative solutions to problems and you do deserve to be rewarded for that, but to lock that idea up goes counter to what created us as a civilization. We are founded on the spreading of ideas and the dissemination of information, that’s how we survived as hunter gatherers, that’s how we survived as farmers, that is how we survived as industrialists and that will be how we survive as informationists. The arguments against the spreading of information are the same that the landowners used against the capitalists in Adam Smith’s time and it led to their downfall at the expense of the peasant.

Darryl,
This is a special message for you. Pol Pot and Hitler and Stalin all locked up content and controlled it. When people disagreed with them, they were executed. All these people you bring up were bad people and they side with the copyright maximalists.

Also free instructions or access to inner workings has brought together things like Linux, Mozilla, Google on some things, Apache, HTML, WWW, Agriculture and seeds…until Monsanto locked up the seed and started driving up food prices, Shakespeare…who frequently stole ideas, Artistic techniques, Music..rock and roll being a product of slaves if you take it back far enough and almost every aspect of human society.

What has closing IP meant? Well, higher prices, less competition in a market, less niche products, personal bankruptcies directly related to defending from IP, companies going bankrupt, higher numbers of court cases at the expense of the public often against the public, higher taxes due to special interest subsidies, higher obesity rates, deaths of children due to the protections given to corporations and agriculture, less biodiversity

I can cite every single thing I just said with specific examples, in fact you can probably get many of them perusing this website, but that is more of an afterthought.
***************************************************
FYI – Adam Smith was a consumerist, not a capitalist. He felt that the free market would bring about good social change for the poor if left to it’s own devices. Please stop using Adam Smith to say capitalism is so great when he would have hated copyrights and patents.

AW says:

VIc, you realize Walt Disney’s patent on MM would have already expired if not for Disney pushing for copyright extension rights? Walt Disney also used extensive public domain resources in his creations, ever heard of Fantasia? He created Mickey in an era of less copyrights and suddenly he would have been spinning in his grave?

Also the food argument is hilarious, corn in it’s current form has only recently been locked up. We had the population boom before that. Your arguments are just wrong and completely uninformed. Try doing some research. The only reason we all have to eat Monsanto’s crops is because Monsanto bankrupts farmers who don’t want to use their seed.

Jay (profile) says:

Contested theory

Darryl – “Its just that simple, I dont know why you have so much trouble with it. And why you think that if IP and copyright laws went away, the same people who create and distribute content with the security of laws to protect theft of their product. Too allow them to still distribute it.”

Odd… I continue to use the same example of William Shakespeare and how his work was almost not spread. First, he wrote each person’s section as it came up in a play. Think about this…

Romeo and Juliet was written and the only things that the actors knew was the next person’s line. It was an extraordinary feat that the people that found his work collaborated his plays into a book that we can now enjoy in its entirety.

This was how he copyrighted without a governmental mandate (although royalty still loved him and his plays).

My point is, that without copyright, artists will find ways to protect their works without the FBI having the bust in doors, or people being taken for all they are financially worth unfairly.

Furthermore, once an idea is completed, an artist should move on. Having an idea for 10 years and doing nothing with them is a way to rot. It’s just like Disney’s vault. A movie comes out, people buy it, then it’s locked away again. There’s nothing but Disney’s monetary value and no incentive for people to take those stories and expand upon them.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

So, in approaching an issue like intellectual property, my argument is that if you can create a solution in which the economics allow a greatly increased opportunity for everyone, then you preempt the moral question

MIKE :”So, in approaching an issue like intellectual property, my argument is that if you can create a solution in which the economics allow a greatly increased opportunity for everyone, then you preempt the moral question”

ME : Major Falicy here Mike , debunked by history.

Government Economic plans can NEVER “preempt the moral question”. It is the core of Democratic Political theory.

That is why IP in in the Constitution . That wht it will never be removed.

Let me guess Mike , your Masters thesis was:

“FOR approaching an issue like SLAVERY , my argument is that if you can create a solution in which the economics allow a greatly increased opportunity for everyone, then you preempt the moral question of Slavery.”

This was the argument FOR slavery.

Morals Won.

Please Mike , testify before the Congressional Commerce Committees on IP, with your economics “preempt the moral question”,, see how far you get.
———————————
Again Mike,, the Constitution protects Artists from that argument of IP preempting “the moral question” , and Constitution protects Artists from YOU Mike !!!!

Get used to it

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: So, in approaching an issue like intellectual property, my argument is that if you can create a solution in which the economics allow a greatly increased opportunity for everyone, then you preempt the moral question

You don’t actually seem to understand the Constitution’s “ip” clause. It was NOT meant for artists at all but was meant to “To promote the progress of science and useful arts” accomplished “by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries”

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the two founders who had that put in viewed IP as evil monopolies only permissible in the public interest.

Thomas Jefferson on owning ideas:

“Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

James Madison on granting “ip”:

“But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good.”

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: So, in approaching an issue like intellectual property, my argument is that if you can create a solution in which the economics allow a greatly increased opportunity for everyone, then you preempt the moral question

been through you cited quote 10x here already , and with mike.

T.J. is lamenting that ideas — hope , love , freedom, peace, sufferage — cannot be COPY-Righted.

The fact that CREATIONS can BE Copyrighted is clear , in fact law and history. And the Goal there is to protect the economic interests of the CREATOR of the copyrighted work. ( Law school – political theory of Copyright Law. Take a class.)

Read the Federalist Papers, also to understand why.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: So, in approaching an issue like intellectual property, my argument is that if you can create a solution in which the economics allow a greatly increased opportunity for everyone, then you preempt the moral question

“T.J. is lamenting that ideas — hope , love , freedom, peace, sufferage — cannot be COPY-Righted.”

Except that when you read the quote in full We not only see that he clearly is stating that ideas cannot be property, but it is also clear that he did not view monopolies on creative works as any sort of moral right. This also brings us to another point I want to make, that the clause in the constitution is not a true IP clause.(because the main players involved did not believe that ideas are property)

“The fact that CREATIONS can BE Copyrighted is clear , in fact law and history. And the Goal there is to protect the economic interests of the CREATOR of the copyrighted work.”

The goal, as the constitution states, is to promote progress. Protecting the interests of the creator is just a means to that end, and is itself not the end goal.

Full quote for those interested: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 So, in approaching an issue like intellectual property, my argument is that if you can create a solution in which the economics allow a greatly increased opportunity for everyone, then you preempt the moral question

http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100514/0126329423#c3525

read whole sub -thread,
me , mike , & T.J. and IDEAS

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 So, in approaching an issue like intellectual property, my argument is that if you can create a solution in which the economics allow a greatly increased opportunity for everyone, then you preempt the moral question

And that you provided nothing of substance to counter a similar argument back then, so reading that link was a complete waste of my time.

If Thomas Jefferson did not believe in a right to own ideas, what in the world made you think he believed owning the execution was a moral right?

In fact, he even states this: “Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not”

A patent is not granted for the base idea but the execution of it, and even here “T.J.” is saying that is not a moral right either.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 So, in approaching an issue like intellectual property, my argument is that if you can create a solution in which the economics allow a greatly increased opportunity for everyone, then you preempt the moral question

You shouldn’t argue with a moron, they’ll pull you down to their level and beat you with moron-logic.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 So, in approaching an issue like intellectual property, my argument is that if you can create a solution in which the economics allow a greatly increased opportunity for everyone, then you preempt the moral question

TJ :”Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not”

ME :This IS MY main point clearly we read it differently .

TJ :

“Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, “

ME : TJ on “for the benefit of society” , you get an A +++,
but on “exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right”. Well TJ, my read of John Locke is that he says it is a Natural Right. I thing Tommy J. you would agree it is a moral right ,, or why else would you put into the Constitution — right T.J.?

TJ : I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not”

ME : hey you know best. I love apartments with dumbwaiters.
———————————
by Anonymous Coward, Jun 13th, 2010 @ 2:35pm:

“A patent is not granted for the base idea but the execution of it, and even here “T.J.” is saying that is not a moral right either.”

Me : “NATURAL rights” are quite different from “MORAL Rights”.

Look it up.

cyber-talk to you soon
====================================

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 So, in approaching an issue like intellectual property, my argument is that if you can create a solution in which the economics allow a greatly increased opportunity for everyone, then you preempt the moral question

“you would agree it is a moral right ,, or why else would you put into the Constitution — right T.J.?”

You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen’s rights at all. It was in a section about congress’s powers to regulate in order to maintain balance and order of government, it only dealt with the moral issue insofar as it defined limits as to how far the government could intrude on citizen’s rights in the course of maintaining balance.

In other words, the constitution does not require the government to grant copyrights or patents, only allows it.

Or would you like to argue that the goverment must always be at war with another country? After all it’s covered under that same section of the constitution.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.

YOU ::::: “You [meaning “me” ] conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen’s rights at all. “

Me : I never conveniently ignore any. fact . [ except the mets bullpen, best in baseball 🙂 ].

You miss the fact the whole Constitution is about POWER and Rights. Artists and inventors are given special protections as creators of tangible & sell-able things.

You cannot copyright a new way to spin pizza dough, throw a baseball, or on a new guitar chord — as you cannot copy right chords, only melody and lyrics. You cannot sell then either. I can watch that wonder “knuckle princess” and lean how to through a knuckle ball better. She has no copyright.

So the Copy Right Clause IS ABOUT granting special rights of creation to Artists and Inventors,

that is basic , civil liberties and political theory ,, taught in and “100” college class on the topic.. Take one .
———-
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gDFd3HWYeLVwL3E8VNUta9nK90nQD9GAEKUO0

Yoshida gets first K, but no win in 2nd start

(AP) – 10 hours ago

CHICO, Calif. — Eri Yoshida added another first to her resume, but the 18-year-old “Knuckle Princess” from Japan is still looking for a win.

Yoshida, the first female to play professionally in the United States since 2000, pitched four strong innings and recorded her first strikeout of the season but left with a no-decision in the Chico Outlaws’ 8-4 win over the Yuma Scorpions on Saturday night.

The right-hander gave up two runs and allowed the leadoff batter to reach base in every inning she worked, needing 79 pitches in her second start of the year.

“I wanted to throw one more inning, but the manager has the ideas, he has the strategy, so I respect that,” Yoshida said through an interpreter. “I just want to improve more and more. I prepared to pitch like usual, so I could relax more than last time.”

Yoshida has created quite a stir in this college town since signing with the Outlaws earlier this year. Long lines of fans snaked through the stadium parking lot 30 minutes before the game, with the first 1,000 receiving an autographed picture of Yoshida. Team officials delayed the start briefly to allow people to get inside.

The 5-foot right-hander, who already has a spot reserved in Cooperstown, was much more relaxed than in her debut May 29 despite hitting Yuma leadoff hitter Eric Scriven with her second pitch.

Yoshida’s knuckleball, which she learned from watching tapes of Boston Red Sox pitcher Tim Wakefield, dipped and danced nicely at times and prevented the Scorpions from doing much offensively.

She struck out Timothy Rodriguez on three pitches in the third inning, drawing a roar from the Chico fans, and got a double play in the fourth before allowing an unearned run on an error by Chico shortstop Alex Prieto. The strikeout was Yoshida’s first of the year.

“She’s really getting confident, and when she’s confident and throwing all of her pitches across the plate, she’s tough,” Chico catcher Robby Alcombrack said. “When she really lets the knuckler go and she’s not trying to aim it, she’s good. It’s a knuckleball and you really never know how it’s going to be, but tonight it was heavy and it was late.”

Yoshida left with a 5-2 lead after getting Yuma pitcher Gilbert De La Vara to ground out to shortstop.

During pregame introductions, Yoshida received the loudest cheers as she jogged from Chico’s dugout to the mound for her second start in front of the Outlaws crowd.

It’s already been a whirlwind month for Yoshida. She became the first woman to play pro baseball in the United States since Ila Borders in 2000 when she pitched three innings against Tijuana. That prompted the Baseball Hall of Fame to ask for the jersey and bat Yoshida used in the game.

Yoshida is also gaining a following in the majors. She has met and spoken to Wakefield multiple times, and this week Hideki Matsui of the Los Angeles Angels acknowledged he is a fan of the teen sensation.

“I saw that on the Internet and I am very glad that a major leaguer, like I want to be, is thinking of me like that,” Yoshida said. “That makes me happy.”

The bubbly teen struggled early against Yuma, hitting Scriven. After getting a pair of infield popouts, Yoshida engaged in a lengthy duel with Santos Deleon before Deleon blooped an RBI single to left to give the Scorpions a 1-0 lead.

Yoshida rebounded nicely and pitched a scoreless second inning before running into a jam in the third after giving up a leadoff walk and a one-out double. Yoshida stayed calm, though, and struck out Rodriguez. Deleon flew out to center to end the threat.

Johny Celis walked leading off the fourth but was erased when Yoshida got Ruben Sanchez to ground into a 6-4-3 double play. Masjid Khairy followed with a single to left, stole second, then scored when Prieto failed to catch Bubba Garcia’s popup and was charged with an error.

Yoshida, who singled in her only at-bat during her debut two weeks ago, struck out looking in the second.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Related articles
===============

you cannot copyright the “IDEA” of women’s “Right to play pro baseball” either . Nor Jackie Robinson’s.
——————————————–

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.

“You miss the fact the whole Constitution is about POWER and Rights. Artists and inventors are given special protections as creators of tangible & sell-able things.”

I did not miss that, the section with the monopoly(aka IP) clause is about the legal rights of the government to enact copyright, not the morals rights of authors as per your earlier assertion.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.

“not the morals rights of authors as per your earlier assertion.”

ANS : Law come for how society views Moral rights at the time the law is written.
Out views change,, but Moral rights , have always grown wider and deeper, not more shallow and narrower.

Slavery , Dueling , wife beating , where all once legal.

No more. Our morals have grown, ( unless you like dueling w/ pistols)
———————–
Drug laws will change soon to, Esp pot.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.

“Law come for how society views Moral rights at the time the law is written.”

And again, you claimed the constitutional clause had to do with the moral rights of authors specifically. Both the statements of the founders who were the main players in having the clause added and the clause itself proved you wrong.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 And again, you claimed the constitutional clause had to do with the moral rights of authors specifically.

ANS : sorry you are wrong. You totally mis-understand that Laws stem for moral viewpoints. It is a “Basic accepted Political Theory” , that ALL laws stem for moral viewpoints.
————————————–

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11 And again, you claimed the constitutional clause had to do with the moral rights of authors specifically.

“sorry you are wrong. You totally mis-understand that Laws stem for moral viewpoints. It is a “Basic accepted Political Theory” , that ALL laws stem for moral viewpoints.”

I didn’t say that section did not stem from moral viewpoints, I was pointing out that it was not meant to protect the moral rights of authors as you claimed.

And I do understand the difference between moral and natural rights, but those differences don’t really matter as the constitution’s clause was not meant to guarantee protections for either.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 was not meant to protect the moral rights of authors as you claimed.

In school , i NEVER ever though , i would be using Ayn Rand , to support a point ,, like is strange :

“Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all ++property rights++: a man’s right to the product of his mind.” ~ Ayn Rand.

[[ full quote @ http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.html . OK , I am not posting the full quote this time , just a fair use excerpt ,, OK ?? Everybody HAPPY ?? Smile please. 🙂 ]]
———————————-
Everybody agrees that “property rights” are MORAL Rights. John Locke [and me too] , hold that “property rights” do extend also into, and stem from , NATURAL RIGHTS.

Remember , you must hold by a ” Living singular G-d” (or Pantheism) , to accept NATURAL RIGHTS.

If you are a G-D-less heathen — some of my best friends and relatives are 🙂 — than Natural rights CANNOT BE in you lexicon.

And I ASK :: If you are a “poly-theist” can you hold by NATURAL Rights?? Only if your “Poly’s” agree on that point. Zeus could be against copyright. Apollo for it. Thus it would not be a Natural Right, as the Poly-s are in dispute.

[ “6 am philosophy” ,, uuuugh ,, “Poly want a cracker ?”]

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13 was not meant to protect the moral rights of authors as you claimed.

Last I checked Ayn Rand was not one of the framers of the constitution, therefor making any quotes by her irrelevant as to whether or not the founders believed in moral rights in regards to copyrights and patents.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:14 was not meant to protect the moral rights of authors as you claimed.

As was Jefferson, who at the time was secunded to France and the US Ambassador. And yet, he is constantly held in reverence as “the” Founding Father who framed Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, the so-called IP Clause (aka, the Patent and Copyright Clause).

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeq M5gDFd3HWYeLVwL3E8VNUta9nK90nQD9GAEKUO0

Yoshida gets first K, but no win in 2nd start

Um. TP. You’ve spent the last few weeks here raging against people for questioning copyright, and THEN you post an ENTIRE copyrighted article on our site — opening us up to liability for infringement?

Are you nuts? Seriously.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.

MIKE :and THEN you post an ENTIRE copyrighted article on our site — opening us up to liability for infringement?

ME : Method to madness.. Now I get to ask you ,, Mile ,, would you Mike ,, fight the lawsuit ? On Principle ? You seem to hold it would be ok to post the full article according to your Copyright Dogma ..Mike.

But , yes Sir , this is indeed your house @ techdirt ,, so if you really want ,, I will only post “fair use ” excerpts from here on.

Is that what you are saying?

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.

p.s . I thinks cited us of AP , is fair use here,, even legally , as the law stands,, as techdirt is an educational site ? right?
While you do have ads, I still think in our posts here , fair use citation of complete articles ,, with full links , is ok , under the current law.

Maybe not. Interesting case , either way. I would litigate it. Seriously.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.

# The New York Times
Reprints
This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the “Reprints” tool that appears next to any article. Visit http://www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.

I, as a techdirt poster, am using my “copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only” thing ,, to help my academic arguments.

Again Interesting case .

I cannot find , your tecdirt posting policy ,, do you have one ,posted here?

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.

Method to madness.. Now I get to ask you ,, Mile ,, would you Mike ,, fight the lawsuit ? On Principle ? You seem to hold it would be ok to post the full article according to your Copyright Dogma ..Mike.

I wouldn’t get sued. You would. I would just get a DMCA note, and since we’re registered with the DMCA, we would take it down, and most likely ban you from this site.

Is that what you are saying?

I’m saying you’re a hypocrite.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.

no I am pushing the envolpe.

Academic Fair Use or factual journalism ,, is a very different animal that “Artist Rights” and full conrol of un-fair-re-use.

But not that my point is illustrated— I mean I have been posting articles for weeks ,, why now do you speak up?–

I will just post the relative/needed excerpts.

I still thing we both would have a good case with any AP complaint , and i for one would welcome a chat with their lawyers , on the matter, to seek illumination & compromise , but not conflict .

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 and most likely ban you from this site.

It won’t come to that. I always respect house rules.

But where is the techdirt posting policy , where this is spelled out?

Academically speaking ,, ONLY : If AP sued me,, I would ask that you be joined as a defendant with me,as I did see not posting policy displayed here at techdirt, and i looked .

( I would not sue you , but claim you are equally liable , IF you and /or I broke some fair use law.)

Again method to madness, pushing the envelope.. i have been hoping to get into this point of conversation — thus the full article posts.
( I always play fair ,, but shrewdly so .)

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 and most likely ban you from this site.

Academically speaking ,, ONLY : If AP sued me,, I would ask that you be joined as a defendant with me,as I did see not posting policy displayed here at techdirt, and i looked .

“Posting policy” has nothing to do with anything and has no legal weight. All that matters is copyright law, and that makes you liable.

But the point remains, you can’t claim that copyright is all well and good and then abuse it the way you did.

And, no, your fair use claim would likely not stand up, at all. Not even close.

TP, I’ve followed a few of your discussions in the past few weeks, and all I can say is that others here have repeatedly taken the time to prove you wrong, and ignorant of history, the law and basic philosophy, over and over and over and over and over again. It’s hard to take you seriously when you continue to make ridiculous, factually wrong statements — while at the same time not actually living up to the standards you insist everyone else must live up to.

Others have suggested you can’t be serious. I’m going to believe them as well and will no longer discuss these matters with you. There are important points to discuss. Tragically, you’re not raising any of them.

What a waste.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 but then infringed copyrights for no other reason other than the fact he could.

NO. I “fair used ” and did not infringe copyrights,, for no other reason other than the fact, THAT I could prove a point in doing so.

Techdirt has no Posting policy posted !

Who is the legal onus on, if a poster brakes the law . repeatedly ,, w/o comment from Moderator Mike — AS I have posted full articles or extensive excerpts much here , for the last several weeks—-
who exactly is Liable in such case.>>>MY POINT !!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10 but then infringed copyrights for no other reason other than the fact he could.

“NO. I “fair used ” and did not infringe copyrights,, for no other reason other than the fact, THAT I could prove a point in doing so.”

“I have posted full articles or extensive excerpts much here, for the last several weeks”

You claim fair use and yet you say you have posted the full articles or extensive portions of them. simply reusing them in full is clearly not considered fair use under current law.

“Who is the legal onus on, if a poster brakes the law”

The poster who broke the law of course, which is the nincompoop who calls himself technopolitical.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 In other words, the constitution does not require the government to grant copyrights or patents, only allows it.

“In other words, the constitution does not require the government to grant copyrights or patents, only allows it.”

Sorry WRONG. BIG TIME.

I write a song. As soon as i play it in public, it is constitutional protected.

A Patent , MUST be applied for and granted. But the GOV’t MUST allow that process and protect the granted Patent.

BASIC Constitutional LAW principles there. Civil Liberties 101, for non -majors

Any Mouse says:

Re: So, in approaching an issue like intellectual property, my argument is that if you can create a solution in which the economics allow a greatly increased opportunity for everyone, then you preempt the moral question

Wow. Peddling those fancy thoughts and dreams, again, are you?

Let me guess. Your master’s thesis was ‘I’m right, and you’re wrong, and if you don’t like it, tough, because you can’t use logic like I can.’ Am I close? Still not following your loose definitions of logic.

Darryl says:

What the F*&^% ???

Re: still shilling?
by Anonymous Coward, Jun 12th, 2010 @ 1:46pm
Not all forms of “property” are created equal.

For example, I’d be willing to bet you’re against slavery. Since slavery is a form of property that would make you a communist too by your logic.

Whos logic is thats ?

Lets look at this ridiculous statement…

“Slavery is a form of property that would make you a communist too by your logic”.

Just how is that supposed to work, people are not against owning PROPERTY, and yes some property is illegal for you to have, such as slaves, bombs, probably rocket launchers and so on.

So being pro property is not bad, or communist, or anti anything, and it’s correct property is not all equal, but rights to and of property is a right. Just not all property.

Especially, property you do not own, and yes there is alot of property that you are not allowed to have, such as other peoples property, or in slavery having another person as property.

So yes, it’s not moral or ethical to take property that does not belong to you, and as such there are laws, and moral rules regarding that.

Apart from your right to own property, you have the right to determine who can use or benifit from your property.

Thats what property right laws are for, and that is what the study of ethics and morals are for as well.

Yes, it can be consider that the possesion of some property is unethical and immoral, particulary if you have no right to have that property. (thats what they call theft).

Having right to property, (property rights) does not give you the right to any and all property.
Just as the ability to acquire that property, by any means still does not give you the right to take it.

But I think its a weak argument, and a form of “shock jock” type reporting, to try to tie morals and ethics to something as innate as file sharing, or using it to justify Hedonism, where its “as long as im ok, jack, I dont care about you, you worry about yourself”.

I think its a pipe dream to think that if IP laws were dropped or weakened that the world would be full of people creating content for free, and just for the pure love of it.

That is someone comes up with a massive great idea, that will change the world for the better, and make someone huge amounts of money, he will just post it on the web, and let someone else take it and make it great.

IS that going to work ?? no. has it EVER worked like that, ie before IP and patent laws ?

May be you might want to look up the Glass workers in Venice in the 1200’s, there was no IP laws to protect the amazing innovation and invention in glass that the Venice artists developed and created.

Those artists, the glass workers, were allowed to carry swords, got huge pays, were immune from the law, their daughters were allowed to marry the rich. And they were treated like very high ranking citizens.

BUT, they COULD NOT EVER show any one else how to do the work, and they were not legally allowed to leave Vinice, if you did the penality was DEATH.

This was to protect the IP of the glass artists, they made the advancements, and they were able to create works of art and glass products that no one else in the would could compete with (they still do BTW).

But without IP rights, and patents there could be NO sharing of knowledge, and the IP was kept strictly secret.

How does that advance the state of the art, ?? and human knowledge ?? IT DOES NOT..

If there was IP rights and patent rights, they could make their techniques publicly available, not for anyone to copy it, but for people to improve and advance on it.

Its that last bit that you constantly miss, it’s not your right to just use what someone else has done, but you are more than welcome to look at it, and if you can do it better, faster, cheaper or differently you have every right to also claim rights for your advancements.

You think that if someone patents “a method to achieve an internal combustion engine” that someone else cannot look at that, and see a better method of achieving an internal combustion engine, and patent that.

If this did not occur, we would still be using the engine design of the first engine. but WOW we dont, even patented things are constantly being improved, and patented improvements or different methods can and are patented.

Its too simplistic to consider, that patents are so broad that you cannot improve on them, or that somehow IP and patents are somehow bad, when historically without them, things are much worse, and it’s why those IP laws are in place. To make life better for everyone.

Anonymous Coward says:

What the F*&^% ???

The thing is, the other poster was saying that taking the stance that one(just one) form of property is illegitimate makes you a communist.

Therefor objecting to slavery(a form of property) makes you communist by that line of reasoning.

“But without IP rights, and patents there could be NO sharing of knowledge, and the IP was kept strictly secret.”

What about all the knowlege that was shared before IP was even invented? How exactly was knowledge of Shakespeare and the proper way to build a boat released the the public when there were no IP laws then(and according to you, that meant it was impossible)?

Darryl says:

Ignoring the rights of others is immoral and unethical.

“by Richard(profile) , Jun 12th, 2010 @ 1:55pm
If you have ever opened up some electronics equipment and found the circuit encased in a solid block of special potting solution, like rock.

Yup – but the purpose of potting is NOT to stop you modifying it – it is to make the circuit robust:

From Wikipedia
“In electronics, potting is a process of filling a complete electronic assembly with a solid compound for resistance to shock and vibration, and for exclusion of moisture and corrosive agents”

That is true, that is what potting is done for, but its also commonly used to lock up the circuit to eliminate access.

They also use other techniques, (like the fuse bit), they use multi-layer printed circuit boards, masked so you cant see or access the tracks, so you cant trace the circuit, they often will grind off all the identifiers on all the components, so you dont know what that black IC is, they use special screws to lock the chassis, “factory repair only” they supply NO technical manual, or circuit diagram.

They put transfers over the access screws so they can tell if you have tried to open it. And they can and do void support, warranty, calibration if you attempt to gain access to the internals.

So yes, potting is for technical reasons, but there is no reason that people use it to lock up designs, they also use many other techniques as well, to protect their design, their IP.

This is what has to be done by these people, because the existing laws are (for some reason) not strong enough to protect their IP, so they do it themselves.

As is their right, and if you dont like it, you dont use their products.

But most things lock up like that are because it does something very well, that others would be eager to copy.

So they stop that, and nothing they are doing is illegal or unethical. But a response to a problem, and that problem is that people are willing to take someone elses work and try to profit from it.

And for the person who said thoughts can be unethical, NO, ACTS are moral or ethical, you can think something unethical, that does not make you unethical, but if you think something unethical, and act on it, or act it out, that act could be unethical.

I can think about killing someone all day, that does not make me bad, or unethical, many people do that, police hunting a killer would probably think about killing alot.

But the ACT of killing is unethical, not the idea, or thought. And its not unethical because its against the law, its unethical because its something you probably would not like to be done to you.

“Do unto others and you would wish others do unto you”.

Some people would consider owning a gun to be unethical, but guns in themselves are not either moral or immoral, they can be used for both moral and immoral applications.

You might want to kill someone, (unethical if you did not know), or you might use it to kill some food to feed your family so they survive (moral and ethical).

The act of killing per see is not ethical or unethical, the NATURE of the act is what is the determination.

So in that context “Thou shall not kill” is very limiting, often we have to kill to survive, we kill animals all the time, and its against one of the commandments !!.

So the say ethics on objects is possible is wrong, its acts that have moral and ethical value. and the nature and intent of the act in particular.

So its certainly unethical to take a work from someone else, WHO DOES NOT WANT YOU TO COPY IT, and copy it against his wishes, just as it unethical to take someone elses car, or life if they dont want that to happen to them.

YOU dont get to choose morals and ethics of others, now do you get to determine the rights of others, and their property.

Just as they dont have the right to tell you how to use, or own your own works.

So ignoring the rights of others, and putting yourself above everyone else, saying ‘what is yours is mine, and what is mine is mine’ would be less ethical than complying with others wishes and desires. As they comply with yours.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Ignoring the rights of others is immoral and unethical.

“So ignoring the rights of others, and putting yourself above everyone else, saying ‘what is yours is mine, and what is mine is mine'”

That’s exactly the attitude of the pro ip camp. They want to say that the copies they did not create and were never in their possession belong to them somehow, and the original copy they did create is also theirs too.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Ignoring the rights of others is immoral and unethical.

So yes, potting is for technical reasons, but there is no reason that people use it to lock up designs, they also use many other techniques as well, to protect their design, their IP.

Exactly as I said in another comment. In spite of all the patent and copyright laws, that are at least partly justified on the grounds that it encourages publication of ideas – people still keep stuff secret whenever they can. So clearly the existence of patents and copyrights does NOT prevent secrecy.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Ignoring the rights of others is immoral and unethical.

So its certainly unethical to take a work from someone else, WHO DOES NOT WANT YOU TO COPY IT, and copy it against his wishes,

But the contention in this post is that it is the initial “not wanting you to copy it” part that is immoral. You are mostly arguing about a completely different issue so most of your post is actually irrelevant.

Also, at least part of the time you appear to be arguing against your own thesis when you compalin about circuits being potted so you can’t repair or modify them. The point is that IP law has exactly the same effect as potting compound when used that way – so if you think potting compound is bad then you should also think IP is bad.

The first moral argument is about the damage trying to defend IP does to the defenders.

The second is about the collateral damage the existence of IP (and especially the attempts to defend it) does to those who simply don’t want to be involved with it.

Defending your own content is one thing – but when you try to shut down services or outlaw devices that are used by many people for totally legal and moral ends then you have lost any moral justifications you ever had.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Ignoring the rights of others is immoral and unethical.

“So its certainly unethical to take a work from someone else, WHO DOES NOT WANT YOU TO COPY IT, and copy it against his wishes,”

I don’t see how it is unethical. Maybe impolite at worst (and I would even disagree with that), but not unethical. If that other person doesn’t want his/her work to be copied it is impolite, if not unethical, of them have done it and let others know about it to begin with and then to deny others the ability to copy it. No one is forcing you to do something, if you don’t want to be copied then don’t do it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Ignoring the rights of others is immoral and unethical.

Even though you may not be copying an expressed answer from someone else’s paper onto yours during the time of the test you are still copying an answer that was expressed to you before the test (ie: while you were studying for the test the night before) from the book that you were reading into your brain onto the paper.

As far as essays are concerned, your ideas have built on the ideas of others and in many ways are copies or similar to those ideas and there is a difference between copying someone elses essay and claiming that you wrote it. If I copied someone elses essay onto my computer and read it because they gave it to a friend or somehow expressed it to others then there is nothing wrong with that. If I claimed it as my own then that’s a different story.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Ignoring the rights of others is immoral and unethical.

Relate this to a classroom setting where you are in competition with others for grades.

Complete red herring.

The immorality here is the deception of pretending that someone else’s work is your own. In this context copying with attribution is completely OK. (Although it may not get you a good mark).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Ignoring the rights of others is immoral and unethical.

“YOU dont get to choose morals and ethics of others,”

and they don’t get to choose my morals and ethics either. If I want to copy and I think it’s OK then they don’t get to choose that.

“now do you get to determine the rights of others, and their property.”

By disallowing me to copy they are determining my rights and they are taking away my rights just to enforce their privilege. I have a right to copy, their ability to prevent me from copying is a privilege. No, they don’t get to determine my rights and take them away.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Ignoring the rights of others is immoral and unethical.

Until you have a better argument, most other posters are probably ignoring you.

You keep telling people how they should read This or That or whatever. You’ve yet to really come up with anything to really counter any of the points that even Mike has made.

As you’ve constantly repeated the same behavior, ad nauseum, it’s best not to talk to someone that doesn’t have a strong argument.

I could understand if someone felt strongly pro copyright. But if your argument is torn to shreds and you continue to hold on to an outdated belief, though it’s your choice, your argument can not advance. Oh well. Perhaps one day you’ll understand TP. As it seems now, I’m disappointed that your potential is wasted on using the same fallacies over and over.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Until you have a better argument, most other posters are probably ignoring you.

You:Until you have a better argument, most other posters are probably ignoring you.

ME: Posters, Yes.
Readers — the “Silent Majority” — no.
Mike reads everything I post . as carefully as I read his.

And I don’t know about Mike, but I an having a lot of fun here too. I like a good debate.

So does Dad, all his “Pink-oH Commy” relatives.

We have a 1st cousin , who at the age of 95, got her “75th anniversary of membership” Communist Workers Pin.

I have been arguing “free press” and “copyrights” with “PROFESSIONAL COMMUNISTS” — (haa , take that cousin Gloria )– since I could talk.

Techdirt posters do not really concern me .

Mike does , though.
——————————-
YOU :You keep telling people how they should read This or That or whatever.

ME: Uhh,, so does Mike everyday. His post are all links to reading assignments for serious posters. To me that is why I do love reading and referencing articles for my own “Techno Political” blog that I have for years ( see my profile, your can read the label “my thesis” if you wish. I was a 6 credits double “English- journalist” /” poly-sci” Honors Project.
the academic standards committee had final “Grade Say”, as it was also an “independent study” project. Two years of reading about law , and copyrights , and eavesdropping all those other labels on my blog( — see profile–) .

Read my Blog,, total maybe 2-3 hours reading ,, only 400+ focused posts. get back to me .
————————

ME ::Techdirt is still the best place to come for what is going on in tech, Gov’t , and law, by far,

Mikes views on copyright law in the USA, however just are bizarre,,

and unfounded,

and in-factual,

completely ignore law and history ,

and Mike’s “copy rights thesis” is disagreed with by 100% of congress ,

and all nine kids playing for TEAM SCOTUS
——————————————————

YOU: You’ve yet to really come up with anything to really counter any of the points that even Mike has made.

ME : Wrong. You are not reading carefully.

And,, Mike , I am still waiting on “Bruce vs. McCain” for your clear full answer, not some dismissive sentence.
—————————————————–

YOU :As you’ve constantly repeated the same behavior, ad nauseum, it’s best not to talk to someone that doesn’t have a strong argument.

ME: What is your academic degree on?

It simply cannot be a Social Science.

You comments are pretty Junction High School.

Take a “civil liberties” or “political scientific” “100” class.

Put some tuition money where your cyber-mouth is.

——————–
YOU :I could understand if someone felt strongly pro copyright.

ME: i promise , I am more strongly pro Copy RIGHTS , than any pirate is against , 10X.

>> As I paraphrases Mr. Mingus before::

“Music Songs are our children, you never know how, quite how ,,,they will grow up and develop “

The Grateful Dead used to play songs for years , even decades, before they put it on a album — the definitive version.

The Beatles quit touring , because George , said the music is not getter better , and the other Boys agreed.

On the final recorded Album “let it be”, is “ONE after Nine of NIne.” One of the FIRST songs “The Fab Four” ever wrote .

( i will of course post the links at you tube and else where to back up that point of Beatles history. ( Plus a Beatle brake is always good. ,,,,

,, the Mets are up against the Balt-O’ “6-3”.

the O’s could be worse than the 1962 mets. I was 4 years old. I really like baseball , so I thought I would share it with the silent majority of readers.)

———————————-

YOU : But if your argument is torn to shreds

ME: what “Arguments” ? And “How”?

( your homework, ans that point clearly ,, please , and references from my posts. — AND . Jason Bay just cracked a HR , 7-3 mets. cool.)
===================

YOU : and you continue to hold on to an outdated belief,

ME : I believe in G-D too. so do the Beatles,

with George a the Holy Guru of Musicians EVERYWHERE.

George put the Mystical into the “Rock and Roll Soul”

G-D bless his soul. Rest in Peace.
————————————————————

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Until you have a better argument, most other posters are probably ignoring you.

Clearly me . On sundays , clean disk , and defrag.

I also still have newbee friend who forward strange emails
I caught to malware this week. I killed them with my cyborg
Windows program,

(( Yes , I am starting to believe SP3 , has acquired collective intelligence. ,,,,,, David Wright , HR. Mets 9-3. over O’s. $ HRs for Mets,,,,, I am having a good day.[– and it mom’s birthday too ,, hi mom ] — !!!! ))

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 I caught TWO malware this week. I killed them with my cyborg Windows program,

While I disagree with Technopolitical on IP (ie: I tend to be against IP or at least against the current state of IP) after reading many of his posts I am beginning to think he is sincere in what he says. Hopefully he will come around to realize that our current intellectual property system does need to be corrected and has many many problems.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 intellectual property system does need to be corrected and has many many problems.

YOU :”intellectual property system does need to be corrected and has many many problems.”

Me : Patents ,, big YES !!!

Copyright ,, need to get better , and stronger , and will. Congress is there 100%

————–

YOU : “after reading many of his posts I am beginning to think he is sincere in what he says. “

Me : Thank you !
——————————————

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Until you have a better argument, most other posters are probably ignoring you.

*sigh*

Final rebuttal. There’s few points in talking to you because again, you keep to the same tired routine of attack the person, not the argument.

“ME: Posters, Yes.
Readers — the “Silent Majority” — no.”

Nixon believed the same thing. He probably had dementia as well as being extremely paranoid about this “Silent Majority”. You have a freedom to say anything you want. Believing in a Silent Majority is of little concern to your argument. I would rather someone read the argument and come to their own conclusion than believe a “Silent Majority” is only for me to interpret as on my side. World doesn’t work that way.

” Uhh,, so does Mike everyday. His post are all links to reading assignments for serious posters. To me that is why I do love reading and referencing articles for my own “Techno Political” blog that I have for years ( see my profile, your can read the label “my thesis” if you wish. I was a 6 credits double “English- journalist” /” poly-sci” Honors Project.
the academic standards committee had final “Grade Say”, as it was also an “independent study” project. Two years of reading about law , and copyrights , and eavesdropping all those other labels on my blog( — see profile–) “

HUGE difference. You have no links backing you up. Merely tell people “Go to school,” coming off as a huge authoritarian figure. You offer no links, nor support for why you feel the way you do. When I feel the way I do on a subject, I back it up with sources. You have ranted and raved for a few days, dismissing arguments and not even commenting on them. You once espoused how you were a fan of the Socratic Method. Upon inspection, it seems you blur the line with sophistry, to which I am again, disappointed. You seem like you would have a better argument, you just have to let this one go.

Also, regarding copyrights – I have researched the laws for 7 years. I have read the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, I understand the Sony Bono Copyright Extension. I know all about Disney Laws. Your two years is but a drop in the bucket, because judging how Karl quizzed you and you failed to respond, it was not enough. Again, disappointment in the fact that you are not really looking to expand your knowledge, merely hold on to an outdated belief.

“and Mike’s “copy rights thesis” is disagreed with by 100% of congress , “

Again, wrong. If 100% of Congress believed in copyright, why do we have people contesting The ACTA? You know what? Don’t answer. I can predict the response now. “Go to law school” It’s not worth the effort to get a straight answer from you.

“What is your academic degree on?”

My degree is none of your concern. You believe highly in higher education but it doesn’t do much to protect you from the very fact that copyright affects you irregardless of your degree. I have my pursuits in education. I have proven that I have a working brain to come to my own conclusions about what’s right. Again, you’ve yet to answer my questions regarding me being a writer, but I don’t want the answer. I’ve seen that you make a simple argument quite sophisticated for no other reason than to make it seem as if you won. *shrug* Nowhere to go when you delude even yourself.

“ME: what “Arguments” ? And “How”?”

here Notice Karl as well, who you ignored and ridiculed. He answered your questions, you didn’t. I respect Karl’s opinion, not because of him using what you say is “pirate logic” but he takes the time to explain himself. You only have time for petty insults. I’m too old for that. I could go on, but the argument is wearing thin.

“I believe in G-D too. so do the Beatles,
with George a the Holy Guru of Musicians EVERYWHERE.
George put the Mystical into the “Rock and Roll Soul”
G-D bless his soul. Rest in Peace.”

Nice to know that you can continue to ignore what I wrote, which is “you have an outdated belief.”

To expand on that, you hold the idea of sophistry in your argument. You dismiss any doubters to falsely say you won the argument through some bizarre belief that only you have. As it stands, I even picked apart your argument here, the best you could do is talk about political masturbation.

*shrug* It’s not that I don’t like a good debate. It’s just that my time is better spent with people with an actual viewpoint. Good luck in changing the laws as you see them. I’ll be on the side that’s fighting to save the small businesses from ASCAP, BMI and the Copyright Trade Office.

Seriously. says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Until you have a better argument, most other posters are probably ignoring you.

Why do you bother responding to a troll?

He says he has a diploma and worked in politics most of his life then he comes around and says he was a musician and got to school at 35/37 obviously he was either exaggerating his position or simply lying out right, most probably this is a fake person with a fake profile with only the intuit of trolling he brings nothing to the table not even arguments that pass the laughing test why respond to a troll?

This is probably a paid shil he is not worth attention.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Ignoring the rights of others is immoral and unethical.

Ignoring the rights of others is immoral and unethical.

Indeed. So why do you ignore the rights of someone who comes up with an invention independently? Why do you ignore their rights to do what they can with their own ideas and inventions? Why do you ignore the rights of consumers to tinker with what they legally purchased?

Why, Darryl, why?

So ignoring the rights of others, and putting yourself above everyone else, saying ‘what is yours is mine, and what is mine is mine’ would be less ethical than complying with others wishes and desires. As they comply with yours.

Ok. So, explain why independent invention is not allowed. As it does EXACTLY what you describe above. It tells someone that SOMEONE ELSE owns the rights to their invention. Patents used against an independent invention are the very definition of “what is yours is mine”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Ignoring the rights of others is immoral and unethical.

“Indeed. So why do you ignore the rights of someone who comes up with an invention independently? Why do you ignore their rights to do what they can with their own ideas and inventions? Why do you ignore the rights of consumers to tinker with what they legally purchased?” – second one to reach for a gold ring gets nothing. it is the nature of the game. independent invention is a slippery term for “we didnt look at the other guy, we promise!”. it is also an incredible waste of resources to have multiple people doing the same thing, it isnt very efficient, is it? well, it is, if they come to different solutions to the same issue, allowing the marketing place to choose the preferred option. but if they come to market with exactly the same product, there is a good chance that neither of them actually make enough money to make it worth going on (xm and sirius, example). sometimes markets are better served by a winner take all mentality rather than recycling over the same ruts again and again.

the right to independent invention might have been a more reasonable argument 500 years ago, when news and details of inventions took years to spread around the world. the current infinite digital information distribution system makes it very unlikely that an inventor hasnt already seen at least some part of the other side, making their discovery somewhat less than truly independent.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Ignoring the rights of others is immoral and unethical.

second one to reach for a gold ring gets nothing.

But that goes against *everything* that Darryl claimed originally. It means the second one to create something, totally on their own, can’t even use their own invention.

You really can’t support that, can you? I mean, I know you spend a lot of time making absolutely ridiculous arguments on this site, but that’s just beyond the pale.

it is also an incredible waste of resources to have multiple people doing the same thing, it isnt very efficient, is it?

Perhaps you’re not familiar with how R&D happens today, but it usually involves multiple companies all working on similar things at the same time. By your argument, every company that doesn’t get there first should just shut down?

You want not efficient? That’s it.

but if they come to market with exactly the same product, there is a good chance that neither of them actually make enough money to make it worth going on (xm and sirius, example)

Uh try again. In most cases, there’s more than enough. XM/Sirius is a special case due to the ridiculous capital costs, combined with regulatory issues.

it very unlikely that an inventor hasnt already seen at least some part of the other side, making their discovery somewhat less than truly independent.

Studies — mentioned on this site — have proven this claim to be totally false, so it’s pretty silly for you to make it. I believe the study found that in something like 90% of patent lawsuits, it was clear that the accused had no knowledge of the patent/invention in the first place.

But you’re not one to let facts get in the way of making arguments, huh?

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Ignoring the rights of others is immoral and unethical.

Again Mike ,, on Patents ,, you got a good cause ,, and a good case, and a constitutional solution , may come out of Congress soon — I hope.

But on Artist Copyright — you Sir are a “Loony Tune”.

( if you are ever in NYC , Mike ,,we should meet for a few beers,, let me know.)

NAMELESS ONE says:

@6

motivated by money eh?
50 years of it in canada
150 or so in the usa

is it enough?
oh you need another sports car, mansion….i see
motivation for a few locked up labels rather then OPEN IT ALL AND use and think open source why people wold create.

no one in open source does it JUST for the money do they….yes they do but the back end primary is someone who wants something so bad they do it themselves.

this is why the taxonomy as mentioned is very true and what america is trying to not do is have to increase there term rates any more to keep proping up a really bad model and instead they are running aorund the world trying to get it done to others and when the end comes it will all collpapse.

STAR TREK – GENE RODDENBERRY
– replicator
Is this invention the ultimate pirate technology?
WHAT cool planet would not want to end world hunger by developing that? OBAMA whats it all locked up in patents and copyrights so that it will be america not any other nation that makes things.

THAT any politician in the world can’t see that means either they are really stupid or are traitors to there own countries future.

Another point to make here is that with all the technology in front of the average person they have ability to actually do almost anything science wise. WHY limit that ability? your just slowing progress not helping it….

Also this is not a socialist vs capitalist discussion ..WHY?
Because a true capitalist is against unions like the mpaa, riaa, and the actors guild and other musician guilds.
HE would want them utterly smashed to the ground so he can profit himself for having for himself. A socialist sees the over taxation and harm to its citizens and wishes for a open source solution.

The other point to make here is that while holly wood profits are rising in billions other sectors of the economy are suffering from bad to worse, to fix that the over taxation brought to you by Hollywood could be alleviated by a having of USA terms, this YES would drop Hollywood profits BUT that money doesn’t disappear. NO it would in fact go elsewhere in the economy and you would have a lot more of a recovery far sooner and a more stable ability to whether future issues.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: @6

“The other point to make here is that while holly wood profits are rising in billions other sectors of the economy are suffering from bad to worse, to fix that the over taxation brought to you by Hollywood could be alleviated by a having of USA terms, this YES would drop Hollywood profits BUT that money doesn’t disappear. NO it would in fact go elsewhere in the economy and you would have a lot more of a recovery far sooner and a more stable ability to whether future issues.”

Your comments sounds somehwat like arguments made for progressive income taxes. “They are making more than enough money, so what is wrong with some of it coming my way since I will use that money in a way that distributes the money received in a way beneficial to the economy?”

It seems to me, however, that this is a zero sum argument where either you can spend the money you save or the creator can spend the same money he earned.

Darryl says:

Intel example:

Assume for a moment the CPU maker INTEL, this is a company that creates a narrow range of high end CPU’s for PC’s, servers and so on.

Now INTEL is so impersonal, what INTEL is, is a group of people trying to provide a living for themselves, the rest of the group, the investors, they do this to live, to exist and to create and sell a product that people want, and are willing to pay for.

Now, the i9 CPU is one of their flagship products, would have taken man years to develop, and billions of dollars.
Intel, Microsoft, Google, the WoW people, and so on basically have one or a very limited number of flagship products that should they fail, either technically or in the market it’s possible the company will cease to exist.
That means Intel would be gone, all their employees would be out of work, (or looking for new work), all the investors (the real owners of the company) would lose their investment. That is the Moms and Dads, you or me, your sister or brother, damaged by the failure of a company like Intel.

If you live in the same country as Intel, your Government will lose a great deal of revinue in taxation, from Intel, and from the workers at Intel, and the ongoing effects of other groups and people getting money from the pay Intel pay their shareholders and employees.

They buy houses, cars, food, computers, that employs other people, and creates more jobs, wealth and greatly improves the quality of living for those involved.

All because, Intel has taken a great deal of risk, time, and investor money to develop a CPU, with the hope that it will be popular and sell well, so they can afford to develop the next generation.

So Intel does all this work, all to create a small file, that is the layout of the CPU, and the definition of the internal structure of the CPU, this information HAS to be made available to the general public, otherwise the CPU is unable to be programmed, as you do not know what it does, if you write software for a specific CPU you buy a “Data Book” which contains detailed information on all the internal structures, instructions, and actions and consequences. This enables you to write assembly or binary code for the CPU, without this information programming the CPU is impossible.

Now you purchase that data book, the information contained in that book, requires NO reverse engineering to reproduce, you go to a cheap and nasty IC FAB plant, and you recreate the i9 CPU, and start to churn them out by the millions.

You have great distributions channels, in place, great advertising, and as you do not mind cutting a few corners in Quality Assurance and testing, you can produce the i9 CPU for cheaper, quicker, and distribute them faster than Intel.

So that is what you do, your IC FAB churns i9 CPUs out by the billions, and their price is half that of Intel’s version, and they are far easier to get, due to your superior distribution, and you get them out quicker, due to your lax manufacturing, testing, and quality control systems.

So your a great success, so much so, that Intel after investing billions of investor dollars to develop the i9 goes out of business, disbands, and the skills and techniques developed there are lost.

Those techniques they developed at great cost are lost, and as you do not know them, you are a one show pony, you do not have the ability to design CPU’s, Intel did but they are gone.

So what do you do next? Do you wait for someone else to create something really good, so you can lift their work? And put them out of business?

This is an example of where ALL THE VALUE of a thing is tied up in IP, it’s all IP, for a CPU.
There may be patents applied in the manufacturing systems, or the design, or even the techniques used, but mostly CPU’s as specific combinations of the same things, just used differently.

Its that difference that makes all the difference, sure AMD CPU’s use the same registers, buses, transistors, wires, lithography techniques and so on, but the difference makes all the difference.

That that difference is and has to be set out clearly for all to see, and use. (so you can program the CPU).
Without that information the CPU would be worthless, and useless.

So just because you have a better manufacturing, distribution, quality, speed methods does not give you the right to use those advantages, to take advantage of the group that designed to product in the first place.

Just because you can do it does not give you the right, to do it.

Its just wrong to think that if you can make something quicker or cheaper or making it more available gives you the right to do that, just because you can.
You do not have the right to take investors money (and risk), and take the product of that work, and use it 1), for your own advancement and 2) to destroy or damage the group who spent the money, and took the risk to provide that product in the first place.

So what happens next, Intel is gone Mike CPU’s are doing good, Mike is now very rich, but does not know squat about designing CPU’s, (he did rely on Intel for that critical function).
His “Mikei9” CPU is doing well, but it’s getting old, and sales have dropped.

So what does Mike do now, does he wait for another company to risk more billions of dollars to develop the next generation CPU ?

Or does he try to employ engineers, and design his own next gen CPU ?

Say he does that, he takes all his billions of dollars he made from his “Mikei9” CPU, and puts an add for CPU engineers.
There were a lot of CPU engineers who used to work for Intel, who know just how to develop the next generation i9 type CPU.
But they KNOW YOU Mike, they know your the guy who lifted (stole) their design last time, and made himself very rich, and put them out of a job.

They probably will not be that keen on working for Mike, and all the people who invested in INTEL the shareholders, lost their money when Intel died, so they are reluctant to invest in CPU development from anyone, they have instead invested in BP (whoops).

So your basically screwed, and what is work, we all are, not only do you have no one to design the next CPU, but all the engineers that used to work for Intel, have moved on and are mowing lawns now.
All the investors have moved out of the market.

So you are basically screwed, and we all are, not only do you not get to develop the next generation CPU, NO ONE gets to have one, or use one.

So how are your actions, or getting the i9 data book, and getting an Asian FAB to build them cut rate, cut quality, but faster so you undercut Intel, and put them out of business.

So after you have denied the people of the planet the next generation, you have provided the world, a cheaper, lower quality, little understood CPU, without the capability to advance the design, with no experience or skills in that field.

So all the engineers and investors who worked hard to create this design, (just a small file after all) mean nothing to you Mike, as long as you can distribute it to more people than they can you feel you are morally justified in doing so.

I guess you really do not look at the morality of damaging every consumer who wants Intel to create better and better CPUs, every investor in Intel, every employee in Intel. Their quality of life and level of harm is immaterial to you just as long as you can distribute quicker, cheaper, and to more people.

You talk about levels of “fairness”, do you understand what fairness or being fair means, it means there are NO levels of fairness, its either fair or unfair.

Get two 4 year old children and find out what “fair” means, take a cake and cut two pieces if you happen to cut on larger than the other, and you say, “They are different sizes, because I assign a higher level of “fairness” to one child over the other, then how is that “FAIR”.

Mom is not going to say “I am being fair, I am just being more fair to one of you”. And find out what the reaction of the children is, yes 4 year old children (and most other people) understand FAIR means FAIR…

Someone trying to determine “levels of harm” is making value judgements on others behalf, as if people are not capable of making decisions about themselves for themselves.

How can you justify something as FAIR, or moral if it is an act specifically against the owner of that properties wishes.
Who are you, and how is it moral or ethical to determine the price of something, or the value of something based on its availability, popularity, and regardless of the cost of development and work into that product, or the knowledge of how to recreate that product?

So why would I invest my saving in Intel, for them to develop the amazing devices that drive our computers, if I knew someone like you would take that IP, assign zero value to it, and based on your morals, determine that the world would be better off if you make those chips cheaper, and use your distribution channel to sell them?

Why would I even invest in an Intel again, if you did that, therefore Intel loses money, investment and possibly go out of business, at least fire staff, and cut back, so that you can make billions of dollars from their efforts, and that to you is moral and ethical. Ok, that is interesting…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Intel example:

“So what happens next, Intel is gone Mike CPU’s are doing good, Mike is now very rich, but does not know squat about designing CPU’s”

How does Mike not know anything about designing a CPU if he designed a CPU? Knowing how to program workable CPU software is different than knowing how to build the hardware necessary to carry out those instructions.

and you act like Intel building the CPU happened all at once and that there were no precursor technologies built by others in the past that Intel didn’t copy. If that were so then why did Intel employees who did CPU R&D have to study technology at universities? They did because they learned from those before them. All technology is built on previous technology.

and much of the reason why the advancement of Intel CPU’s was so successful is partly because patents were largely not enforced or taken.

“Its that difference that makes all the difference, sure AMD CPU’s use the same registers, buses, transistors, wires, lithography techniques and so on, but the difference makes all the difference.”

What? This sounds tautological. You are trying to ignore the fact that competitors also invested in CPU R&D and production and produced similar CPU’s as Intel and yet Intel still survived. and lets not forget about Apple and Macintosh and all the CPU’s that existed before Intel. You are simply trying to substitute reality with your speculation and avoid dealing with the facts that disagree with you. and lets not forget that often times people avoid doing research on something until after patents expire

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Intel example:

Seems you know diddly squat about the actual history of INTEL

Some key facts.

1. INTEL CPU design has always been rubbish. INTEL’s strength has been in manufacturing technology. It is a huge pity that INTEL never used it’s production tech to make someone else’s design.

2. INTEL deliberately cultivated second source companies to copy their products from the very beginning. Second sources were always critical to the semiconductor industry since major customers would never buy products that were limited to a single source.

So why would I invest my saving in Intel, for them to develop the amazing devices that drive our computers, if I knew someone like you would take that IP, assign zero value to it, and based on your morals, determine that the world would be better off if you make those chips cheaper, and use your distribution channel to sell them?

If that argument made any sense why would INTEL effectively set up AMD to copy their products? (For that is the real history in this case.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Intel example:

“INTEL deliberately cultivated second source companies to copy their products from the very beginning.”

and this is a good way that innovation works. The scientists and engineers that spent time, resources, and money to innovate then often sell their knowledge to those who can better market it and both parties benefit. The developers benefit from the sale of the knowledge, those who can better implement and manufacture the technology benefit from the sale of what they produced, and the marketers benefit from what they get paid to market the technology. People find ways to innovate and work out the details of how that innovation should be funded and how funding and monetary compensation to those who do innovate should be distributed. We don’t need a broken government institution to dictate this to us, it only hinders innovation (and aggregate output) by directing resources that could go to actual innovation towards litigation and lawyers and parasites that own patents and others who do absolutely nothing to add value to the equation and all they do is take away from those who would otherwise better use those resources for innovation. Less aggregate output (as a result of existing monopolies) also means that more work must be done to compensate for the lack of aggregate output (ie: more manual labor) which means less work that can contribute towards innovation.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Intel example:

So Intel does all this work, all to create a small file, that is the layout of the CPU, and the definition of the internal structure of the CPU, this information HAS to be made available to the general public, otherwise the CPU is unable to be programmed, as you do not know what it does, if you write software for a specific CPU you buy a “Data Book” which contains detailed information on all the internal structures, instructions, and actions and consequences. This enables you to write assembly or binary code for the CPU, without this information programming the CPU is impossible.

Now you purchase that data book, the information contained in that book, requires NO reverse engineering to reproduce, you go to a cheap and nasty IC FAB plant, and you recreate the i9 CPU, and start to churn them out by the millions.

All this comment does is to demonstrate your almost total ignorance of the realities of the semiconductor industry in general and CPU manufacture in particular.

The information you need to give to allow the public to use and program a device is less the 1% of the information that
is required to actually build one.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Intel example:

Darryl, I actually worked for Intel back in the 90s, so we’re on a subject I’m familiar with. As others have pointed out, Intel’s success was due to their *operations* and *manufacturing*. Intel’s fabs had much higher yield rates than their competitors. So even when AMD chips are technically better (as they sometimes are) the economics still works strongly in Intel’s favor. In other words, even in a world where Intel’s chip design is not protected, Intel is still likely to succeed due to their superior manufacturing.

But even more to the point, Intel was and has always been very, very, very strong at recognizing the value of building up ancillary and complementary businesses. You may not know this, but back when I was at Intel, some of the things we were working on were investments in various online services (such as CNET) to drive more web usage, online multimedia efforts like Real Networks, and even video conferencing (remember Intel Create & Share?).

The idea was always about building up lots of businesses that have a nice symbiotic relationship with more powerful chips. In other words, Intel management was smart enough to recognize you don’t just rely on one business, but look at all the businesses helped by what you do.

So, yes, Intel might function differently without IP, but would it go out of business and cause all those ripple effects? No way.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Intel example:

“o even when AMD chips are technically better (as they sometimes are) the economics still works strongly in Intel’s favor. In other words, even in a world where Intel’s chip design is not protected, Intel is still likely to succeed due to their superior manufacturing.” – two issues here:

1 – if amd spent little on development of their own chips and just duplicated the work of others, do you not think they could do well in the market undercutting intel with exactly the same products?

2 – if amd was only a duplicator, do you think there would be a competitive market driving intel to move ahead so rapidly, or would we still be enjoying high quality pentuim ii processors?

one upmanship requires something to measure yourself against, and requires someone else to be moving ahead to jump over you. without those stimulous, do you honestly think things would move forward as quickly?

consider the pickups in speed of development in history when the printing press arrived, when the telegraph arrives, the telephone, radio, tv, and the internet. when the public (and you) know you are not the best, the motivation is there to be king of the hill. when you dethrone the other guy, he has exactly the same motivation. but in a system where everyone looks over everyone shoulder and sits at the same levels, where are the motivations to move forward quickly?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Intel example:

but they arent making more money, they are just driving more innovation to amd. people will still buy computers, they bought them when they were p-ii, and they would still buy them. if anything, the lack of return on investment in new technology would make them want to keep the old technology valid and in the market as long as possible, to try to benefit from their excellent production processes. so if anything, they would slow down. “more money” isnt the key, it is “more return on money”. spending a billion to make a billion isnt a good trade.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Intel vs AMD

Just a small chime here…

Intel, by all accounts right now, blows AMD out of the water. I love AMD chips out of principle but if I may get technogeek for a second here…

Dual Processing – Intel
Quad Processing – Intel

3D processing – Intel
———————————–

No disrespect to AMD, but the market that they are in is mainly gaming. When you need processing, you go to Intel. The market is not, in any way fair for competitors to Intel. As I’ve been aware, for the last few years, AMD is still playing catchup to quad processing.

Yes, Intel is that damn good. Perhaps another market might get your point across. The computer chip market is already closed.

Michael (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Intel example:

Actually, if AMD (or anyone, for that matter) could simply copy Intel designs, they would constantly be producing chips that were completely obsolete.

Unless they could examine a chip and begin producing it reliably in a matter of weeks, the rate of change in that industry makes this a horrible example for you to use.

Now, if that were legal, it may be that some company manages to perfect some kind of instant chip copying technology that could copy and produce chips the day after they got one. This is where Intel has always had a business model that expands into the ancillary needs of their customers. If you want our knowledge and support – buy our chips. This is how open-source software produces money also – support and expertise is in finite supply and EXTREMELY difficult to copy.

Now, let’s see what would happen if you change to an industry where producing a copy is relatively easy and within the time window in which a copy would retain it’s value. How about the fashion industry. Oops – apparently that is a bad example too.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Intel example:

Stop using Intel if you don’t understand the market.

Intel trounced ARM, its fending of the Chinese versions of the x86 microchips and still is going head to head against AMD and winning and all of that without patents.

Apple just launched the iPad and left out China there is already the iPed that is mighty familiar. Would Apple sue or compete?

If they sue the Chinese will make sure they are very selective on how they will interpret and apply their laws, further in a world of IP the U.S. will suffer in the future and the why is simple, there is no research being done by “AMERICANS” is all done by a group of people that mostly are coming from Asia get the research papers and see if the names of the researchers are not Indian, Chinese, South Korean or Japanese, even Russians but rarely there is an American doing research, do the IP thing and see other start blocking their brain power from going to the U.S. and start asking the U.S. to pay for it indefinitely.

People focusing on imaginary goods and rights will get kicked in the ass and that is what they deserve.

NAMELESS.ONE says:

@108

“The fact that CREATIONS can BE Copyrighted is clear , in fact law and history. And the Goal there is to protect the economic interests of the CREATOR of the copyrighted work.”

WRONG
the intent in history was ot give you an incentive to continue tomake works

I would hten argue the riaa making no works should have no rights whatso ever

It should be illegal in this age where you can easily advertise yourself TO not allow legal sale of your works rights. GIVE you 5 years to make a buck and when you are doing this so called work you have to document for me the public all the costs involved including proof of time spent on it. Then a formula for how much true time you get to recoup your investment plus a few extra years to get back more to continue doing. THEN IT COMES to the public domain for its re consumption FREE and clear , for anyone of the 6 billion other minds on earth to possibly invent , recreate or make available to poorer peoples of earth.

Whats going on now is more then unethical, its just shy if not is criminal in its treatment of humankind.

IT is a HUGE TAX on mankind that is now as you look around causing the world economy some serious trouble when you have removed this form its natural ability to recover.

4 billion on avatar….can i download this free now….
What did it cost to make…..

See why i mention a formula for cost plus a few years….
NO transmission of rights….

boy que up the lawyers cause humans do not tlak nor speak like you people and what will you do when someone invents the Star Trek Gene Roddenberry food replicator, after a ton of CERN experiments make it possible ot know all the possible particles in the universe and we then learn how each bit and piece that makes up everything and the next step is to just recreate items in a machine

WHAT will you do then add farmers to copyrights?
they already have patents on the seeds, replicators would not need the seed. patenting the device and the finished product?

can’t wait for the justification of people dying of starvation to come from the mouth of a hollywood food IP lawyer

Anonymous Coward says:

@104

but but FREE and open source software and design into hardware does exist. WITH a lil umf fomr corporations it accelerates, and this end product is …safer, faster.more stable and has loads a apps free. YUP some make apps for money but you can find literally any app for free.

MS has lost the opensource battle
apple is just making the same mistake
google knows this and thats why they have parted and google is doing the right thing.GOOGLE should go at linux and partner with ibm and others but its good they make there own OS….
2 major opensource on top of the BSDS is healthy

NAMELESS.ONE says:

@115 boy the hollywood supporters are beginning to really sound like nutters lately

what your actually doing then is putting up a product on your front lawn near the street then going to bed and expecting no one to take the items…..

as i said in previous post STOP putting BIG FULL IMAGES IN the POSTS
you can use your image editors to put a nice opaque word diagonal across also
PLENTY a ways man
dont whine cause your just not smart enough to stop a image being downloaded and , to further show how stupid you are, ever here of the browser cache, ALL IMAGES get dropped in there and to save bandwidth will load em up locally
YEA
so now your blaming technology again FOR YOUR FAILINGS
GROW UP
when the message is sound you attack the messenger……
if you want something on the web visual put a pass word on it and make people pay per image

Darryl says:

Your Answer Mike.

“Ok. So, explain why independent invention is not allowed. As it does EXACTLY what you describe above. It tells someone that SOMEONE ELSE owns the rights to their invention. Patents used against an independent invention are the very definition of “what is yours is mine””

OK, I will answer it for you, “independent invention” does not exist, for a start. By the very definition of “invention” means the first to come up with something.

Note “THE FIRST”, there is no prize for second, once SOMEONE invents something, its invented, no one else can invent it, mabey they did come up with the same idea at the same time, but all you can do is take their word for it.

The “yea, I allready thought up that idea” does not cut it, its 2010, the INFORMATION age, may be 100 years ago, when communication was not instant, and there were not massive databases of inventions you could cliam ‘indepent invention’ in which the two inventions would be check for the exact time and date of the invention, (lab note books and such), and the one with the earlier date wins.

Not trying to be crude, but consider virginity, once it is taken, no one else can take it.

The same applied to inventions, once something is invented, anyone else after that time, cannot claim INVENTION.

By the very definition of the word, and to make things easier there are central registries, that allow you to register your invention, thus cliaming it as yours (yes, it is possible for two people to invent something at the same time, but its the first to register it that is the ACTUAL INVENTOR. And once its done its done, you cant unscramble the egg.

So there is no such thing as “independent invention”, you either invent it or you dont, there is no second place.

And Mike that is a basic tennet of IP law, and morals and ethics, you of all people here should know that there is no such thing as “independent invention”. And you making such statements makes you look uninformed at the least.

Ofcourse if there was an issue with independent invention there would be large numbers of examples, where there are issues (legal) dealing with indepent inventions, but geee,, there are not. It seems people who invent things, actually create things, (not just write about them), fully understand that simple concept that you cant invent something that has allready been invented (and registered as official invention).

Thats the key you refuse to acknoledge, its is not a guessing game, or anything, its clear cut, the first to register the invention with the patent office is the inventor.
End of story.

So if you invent something, but dont register it with the Patent office, and someone else does. TOO BAD, you were too slow.

So there is no legal, ethical or moral framework that accepts “independent invention”. And in this information age there is no excuse of ignorance in the present state of the art of the field you are working in.

And you of all people Mike, should know better. And stop trying to distort the issue to suit your bias.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Your Answer Mike.

OK, I will answer it for you, “independent invention” does not exist, for a start. By the very definition of “invention” means the first to come up with something.

Darryl: if you truly believe the above, I have nothing more to say to you. You clearly have never built anything if you believe that’s true.

The “yea, I allready thought up that idea” does not cut it, its 2010, the INFORMATION age, may be 100 years ago, when communication was not instant, and there were not massive databases of inventions you could cliam ‘indepent invention’ in which the two inventions would be check for the exact time and date of the invention, (lab note books and such), and the one with the earlier date wins.

Except, as was noted in a recent post here, a study recently showed something like 90% of patent lawsuits there was evidence that the defendant had NO IDEA about the patent. In other words, you’re wrong.

Really wrong. Not just slightly wrong, but really, totally and completely wrong.

So there is no such thing as “independent invention”, you either invent it or you dont, there is no second place.

You are wrong. You are assuming two things, both of which are wrong. First, you don’t consider multiple companies all working on the same thing at the same time. In those cases, they’re certainly not copying the others. But one may finish slightly before the others.

And then you think it’s okay to take away the rights of every other researcher in that area? Why?

Seriously. Why would you deny those rights to all of those other players?

Imagine 5 companies all investigating a particular chemical compound. One company gets through the FDA testing first, and the rest should throw away all the money the put into it? It’s just gone? How is that possibly fair?

Ofcourse if there was an issue with independent invention there would be large numbers of examples, where there are issues (legal) dealing with indepent inventions, but geee,, there are not.

Um. Wow. No offense, Darryl, but you are incredibly uninformed. As stated, that recent study found something like 90% of patent lawsuits involved independent invention. So, yes, there are a large number of examples. You’re flat out wrong.

Darryl, if you cannot inform yourself on these basic things, it is difficult to take you seriously. But keep talking, it’s amusing to watch you dig a deeper and deeper hole.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Your Answer Mike.

“So if you invent something, but dont register it with the Patent office, and someone else does. TOO BAD, you were too slow.”

and how is this not a disincentive for people to invest if only one person is allowed to invest and profit while the rest are likely to get their money taken away from whatever failure got to the patent office first (especially since most patents don’t even make it to product to begin with).

‘So there is no legal, ethical or moral framework that accepts “independent invention”.”

You mean you won’t accept independent invention. There is no ethical/moral framework that accepts patents, at least not the current state of patents.

“And in this information age there is no excuse of ignorance in the present state of the art of the field you are working in.”

So people must waste precious resources doing patent searches and applying for a patent and getting it granted (assuming no one else has gotten the patent already) before inventing something instead of using that time and money more wisely to invest in technological advancement. So only the person who gets the actual patent first is allowed to invest and the rest aren’t in fear that if they do they will merely have their hard earned investment money taken away from the patent holder? This promotes the progress how exactly, especially since most patents don’t even make it to product and most patents are granted before any investment dollars are even put into anything since no one is going to risk investing anything without a patent that prevents others from getting the same patent and suing them (hence patents themselves have no R&D or investment value and almost only cover very obvious ideas/designs/concepts)?

Anonymous Coward says:

The history of the cotton industry is a highlight of how people used to view the IP side of things, they viewed as something vile and was mostly ignored and cheated, that enable the U.S. to become one of the biggest exporters of textiles in the 1800’s now surpassed by Asia.

BTW this is probably risky for the U.S. as most research is not done by Americans but by Asians. Has any one read the name of the researchesr’s on the papers lately?

Technopolitical (profile) says:

was not meant to protect the moral rights of authors as you claimed.

My point was that copy right is considered a moral right in standard philosophy. TJ was a position more that a philosopher.

LAWS CAN CAN ONLY STEM FOR A

MORAL viewpoint.

READ here for academic sources on TJ ans Morals and law:
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/bibliog/Authors/K.html

Technopolitical (profile) says:

You claim fair use and yet you say you have posted the full articles or extensive portions of them. simply reusing them in full is clearly not considered fair use under current law.

YOU :”You claim fair use and yet you say you have posted the
full articles or extensive portions of them. simply reusing them in full is clearly not considered fair use under current law. “

ME: Clear Citation of law needed ,, as you are playing Cop .

start here :
What is Fair Use? You Tell Us.
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2010/06/10/what-is-fair-use-you-tell-us

Attorney John Burton, who practices Trademark/Copyright and Internet/Technology law, tells us: “Fair use is a legal doctrine under U.S Federal.Copyright law that provides for limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the copyright owners, such as for news, research, teaching and commentary. It provides for the legal use of third-party copyrighted material under a four-factor test:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”

“Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation (2003) set a strong benchmark for fair use and the Internet,” Burton continues. “Arriba Soft was found to have violated copyright without a fair use defense in the use of thumbnail pictures and inline linking from Kelly’s website in Arriba’s image search mechanisms. The decision was appealed.”

“On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendant,” he continues. “In reaching its decision, the court utilized the above-mentioned four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution like the original artwork was. Second, the fact that the photographs had already been published diminished the significance of their nature as creative works. Third, although normally making a ‘full’ replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase exposure of the originals.”

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2010/06/10/what-is-fair-use-you-tell-us

Technopolitical (profile) says:

I've followed a few of your discussions in the past few weeks, and all I can say is that others here have repeatedly taken the time to prove you wrong, and ignorant of history, the law and basic philosophy, over and over and over and over and over again.

MIKE “I’ve followed a few of your discussions in the past few weeks, and all I can say is that others here have repeatedly taken the time to prove you wrong, and ignorant of history, the law and basic philosophy, over and over and over and over and over again.”

ME : just saying I am wrong ,, w/o citing academic sources, is the word of a fool ,who cannot accept I am right.

Sorry this is my discipline ,, and I think the post I put up for the ECONOMIST on copy right debate proofs my point.

I am qualified to teach these points at a college level.

As far as logic — the Babylonian Talmud is nearly4000 pages of dense difficult logic , that Jew Laws is today based on,I do ok there too

I you really want to debate me in a academically moderated forum ,, on copy right, laws moral , and philosophy . as related too,, Set it Mike ,, and I will be there.

I challenge you MIKE , to an “academically moderated” copyright laws , moral, and philosophy DEBATE , anytime , any where ,, as long as we BOTH accept the qualification of the ACADEMIC MODERATOR .

Here for techdirt , MIKE I challenge you ,,to do an extensive sited & sourced post ,, with quotes for me , and shadow EXACTLY “when , where , and how” , I have been proven “wrong, and ignorant of history, the law and basic philosophy,”

Put your “research-keyboard” where you “cyber-mouth.” (i.e. in a cyber -sense , put up your dukes””

Just saying by some idiot drugged out pirate geeks “prove you wrong, and ignorant of history, the law and basic philosophy”,, is a big piece of smelly “B>S>” with backing it up with specifics and within academic parameters.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re:

why would you think there would still be a profit motivation where all of your competitors can copy you without development cost?

Because there’s this wonderful thing called the marketplace where you can *sell* stuff. You should check it out.

that is the price for any single drug, but it is misleading because many drugs do not make it to market. if two drugs make it to clinical trials and one fails, the effective costs of one drug to market doubled (to 60 million).

You should read Goozner’s research. He actually takes that into account. But even if he didn’t… so what? Why should we give a monopoly to pay for failures? By this reasoning, every movie made costs 9x as much as it does, since 9/10 movies don’t make money. Funny that I’ve never seen you make that argument.

most importantly, you are against trying to avoid discussing the main point by going off picking nits. the number is irrelevant, the concept is extremely important.

Yes, which is why I’ve actually read the research on the concept, while you, obviously, have not.

if pharma isnt going to spend the money to develop new drugs, who will?

Who said pharma won’t spend the money? Only you.

You keep assuming, with no evidence to back it up, that without patents, no one would develop drugs. That’s been proven wrong by the very history of the pharma industry. I mean, this is basic history. If you’re going to argue some claim it helps not to have it proven totally and completely bogus by actual history.

And you wonder why everyone makes fun of you here?

who else has that type of money with no desire for a return on investment?

Again, why do you keep assuming no return on investment? Lots of companies have lots of money and could see a huge return on investment from better drugs: insurance companies, companies with products for developing markets that would be helped by healthier people in those markets… just start thinking about it and you begin to realize just how many people have an interest in having good pharma spread throughout the world…

Anonymous Coward says:

Your Answer Mike.

OK, I will answer it for you, “independent invention” does not exist, for a start.

And there you have it folks. This “Darryl” person, being such an ardent government-granted-monopolies supported, is so unable to comprehend anything that he has no answer for and is so sure that he knows everything that he just pretends that anything that doesn’t fit in his little world view just *doesn’t exist*. Period. Cognitive dissonance much? What a fool. But then, I suppose that’s what also makes him such a great tool for the IP camp.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

"Posting policy" has nothing to do with anything

MIKE : “Posting policy” has nothing to do with anything “

ME:
http://www.ucls.uchicago.edu/labnet/tech-support-center/policies/web-posting-policy/index.aspx

Copyright Guidelines

Web site contents must comply with applicable copyright law. This means that:

1. The material (images, text, video etc.) used on the site must be original work, OR
2. You must have permission from the copyright holder to use the work on your site. OR
3. The work must be in the public domain. OR
4. The way you plan to use the work falls under fair use provisions of copyright law.

Copyright law, and particularly what counts as copyright infringement under “fair use” provisions for educators, can be confusing. >>>Nonetheless, educators have a legal and ethical obligation to make an informed judgment about fair use before posting copyrighted material.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

I'm saying you're a hypocrite.

From some one whose posts asked , is “IP itself unethical”,

seems to me , Mike you’re the hypocrite here.

According your Dogma MIKE , ,, I have full right to post articles , within your VERY VERY broad definition of “Fair Use”.

If you had guts,, you would challenge AP to sue you !!!

I will ,, AP please SUE ME !!!!!!!! ———– For posting the” knuckle princess” article here. NY times can join too.
——————————————
I’m saying you’re a hypocrite — MIKE !!!

Anonymous Coward says:

I'm saying you're a hypocrite.

If you had guts,, you would challenge AP to sue you !!!
I will ,, AP please SUE ME !!!!!!!! ———– For posting the” knuckle princess” article here. NY times can join too.

OK then, big mouth, go ahead and post your full legal name and residential address so that they can go ahead and get started on that. Either that or STFU, you whiny hypocrite.

Joe Szilagyi (profile) says:

Jesus, forest for the trees or something

IP as a concept is not evil. Abuse of IP as a concept IS evil.

I was just reading a book on the way into work today: a Charlaine Harris “Sookie” book, which Hollywood turned into the TV show True Blood, that I watched on HBO last night after Alan Ball (Six Feet Under’s creator) pushed it. I was also this morning thinking about the upcoming AMC version of Robert Kirkman’s comic book The Walking Dead, which Hollywood put into production after Frank Darabont (The Green Mile, Shawshank) pushed them.

My thinking was that it’s so wonderful that both Harris and Kirkman won the proverbial lottery in return for creating such wonderful works, and my main thought was “Good for them”.

If we had no IP, HBO/Ball and AMC/Darabont could have trivially taken it all and left them with nothing. Even if they both only got $10,000 off the deals — and I’m sure it was better than that — its $10,000 more than they had before.

The anti-IP zealots needs to understand how the real world works, as much as the pro-IP zealots need to, as well. The real world is not just the RIAA/MPAA and East Texas Lawyers versus crazed people downloading terrabytes of stolen media and helpless tech startups being blockaded from innovation unless they pay some nonsense bounty.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Your Answer Mike.///By the very definition of "invention" means the first to come up with something.

ME: a small point of definition here.

“By the very definition of “invention” means the first to come up with something”,,,,,, and it most almost always*, means building on inventions that came before you.

BY combining their ideas, concepts, and innovations into your new patent.

——–

almost always* : We learn from nature. Who invented the the “first. knife” or ” the first spear” ?

No one.

Man Learned the principle and concepts from observing nature.

Any one here ever been bit by a bear?

Your neighbors dog ?

Your lover ?

Knifes and Spears.

======== e ==== n ==== d ==============

Technopolitical (profile) says:

they spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop drugs, and only a few pass all the tests and make it to market. without a profit motivation, what would their desire be to toss that sort of money around? answer: none.

ME :
You raise good stuff,, that we may go back to,

But I want to deal with this point of “personal principle”
concerning morals in law and history:

Copyright is a law,

AND a moral and/or Natural right.
———————-
This point is the gulf between us.

If you do not extent copyright
and patent as outlined in
the USA Constitution ,

to a moral at least and /or a

Natural Right at best —

We never really can agree on Copyright and/or Patent.
——————-

To me that is the point of any debate —

To find that root issue,

That each side is coming from on.
——————-

Pirates see no moral wrong in their actions.

(Correct?)
——————————

Mankind, Society , and Nations ,

are ( very nearly) unanimous in LAW ,

that Piracy should be AND IS illegal.

——————-

There is deep philosophical debate between the views
of , John Locke, Jefferson & Madison Inc.
, Ayn Rand ,
Mike ,
and me ,

as to whether
“Copyright & Patent protections”
is an “extension
of Natural Law,”

or “Moral Law ” ,

Or no Morals invoked or involved — which is the definition “g-dless nihilism”

Throughout human history Pirates “on land and on sea” have been practicing a “g-dless nihilism” life philosophy ,

Based on the “physical laws of nature” and the “life principle” of “survival of the fittest” .

Cyber Pirates are the same ilk , form my “World View.”

A “Wold view” , that has the force of Law & Government AND the majority of people on Earth behind it.

—–

Now if you do not even accept natural law, well fine.

But THEN WHY ,, oh why,,

is Piracy illegal all over the world?

My Ans : Because Piracy , of all forms , are considered
IMMORAL by the majority of Humanity.

So I ask you now Mike :

Why do you think “Cyber-Piracy” IS “basically illegal” and prosecuted by Governments all over the world?

What the root reasons of the LAWS — their Purpose?

Do you really see it as oppression?
====================================

Technopolitical (profile) says:

real innovative ppl aren't motivated by money

YOU :

“IP is immoral and there is >>>nothing that can stop society from getting to a moneyless economy “
———-

MY ANS :

Idealistically ,, YES ! Of course.

BUT , as long as evil exists, ( i.e. — lie, cheat, steal — by force if necessary ) — Ans : NO !!!!

Thaw is why we have law.

When we neither need law or money , history ends. Redemption begins.

Our human utopia is made.
——————————————-
We got,,, as humans,, , well, we have a while to go before evil is gone,

Piracy is evil and moral by all definition of law and history.

That is why we still need , “gov’t”, “laws “, “money” , and “copyright”.

Too many: “shoplifters”, “spammers”, “pirates at sea”, “bank robbers”, “crime gangs”, “sex trade slavery”, and “land Pirates in Somalia et al” ,, and “tax evaders” , and “Cyber-Pirates” —

– ALL being EVIL and w/o moral qualms .
——————

Law.

and Gravity.

Gravity: It is not just the Law. It is a good Idea.
—————————–

BUT with that IDEA alone ,

no copyright yet for the “Holy Creator”.

Now with “Quantum String theory/ LAWS ”

AND

“all the WORKING Laws of NATURE” is Complete.
————-
The “HOLY ONE’s” patented and copyrighted system of Law & Nature
=================

I,, for one,, would not take any chances of “infringing” or “circumventing” or downloading —

w/o the Holy Creators

WRITTEN permission*.
————————-

( * i.e. the “five Books of Moses” , outlines the written permission –LAW –, in mine and most all the world’s good faiths. )

===== e ===== n ==== d ======

SteelWolf (profile) says:

they spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop drugs, and only a few pass all the tests and make it to market. without a profit motivation, what would their desire be to toss that sort of money around? answer: none.

Copyright is a law,

Yes, this is true.

AND a moral and/or Natural right.

And this is so unbelievably wrong I stopped reading. It is not a “right” in any sense of the word, it is a legal suspension of natural rights and activities. No amount of wishing is going to change this – you can keep arguing this falsehood until you’re blue in the face, but the folks who make money without artificial monopolies are going to pass you right by.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

There's a big difference between self-regulation, which is consistent with freedom, and regulations imposed from a "sovereign," which leads to tyranny

YOU :”There’s a big difference between self-regulation, which is consistent with freedom, and regulations imposed from a “sovereign,” which leads to tyranny”

ANS::

True .

Except we live in the USA in a DEMOCRATIC Republic .

The PEOPLE elect Congress.

There are laws made by congress .

We Follow.

Or we get “prosecuted” .
—————————–

“PEACEFUL” , “Respect-FULL” , “Non- Violent”,,
” Civil Disobedience” is Great.

Civil Rights .

Ant – War,

.B.P. ‘ s Headquarters.

But “shoplifting” is NOT PEACEFUL , RESPECTFUL , Non- Violent Civil disobedience .

“Cyber-Piracy — infringement –circumvention — downloading ” —-

“illegally”

IS in violation of COPYRIGHT.

The Law . of a Democratic Republic.

In is Constitution.

Good Luck Changing the Law.

T’ain’t gonna Happen.

Ever.
===================end

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

State-granted monopoly rights over the expression of ideas (IP laws) are more socialist than a truly free market in expressions. I favor completely unregulated markets in ideas and their expressions as being most efficient.

No, you favor highly regulated, government granted, perpetual monopolies for physical property…while at the same time favoring a completely deregulated, anarchistic market for intellectual pursuits.

Anonymous Coward says:

You claim fair use and yet you say you have posted the full articles or extensive portions of them. simply reusing them in full is clearly not considered fair use under current law.

Thing is, the law is very clear that a perfect reproduction is infringement. That is pretty much the only thing clear in fair use.

Those thumbnails are not a problem because they are thumbnails and do not compete with the “default” version. Your AP articles were perfect reproductions which are clearly illegal.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re:No, you favor highly regulated, government granted, perpetual monopolies for physical property...while at the same time favoring a completely deregulated, anarchistic market for intellectual pursuits.

“No, you favor highly regulated, government granted, perpetual monopolies for physical property…while at the same time favoring a completely deregulated, anarchistic market for intellectual pursuits.”

ME :well put .

Anonymous Coward says:

In other words, the constitution does not require the government to grant copyrights or patents, only allows it.

Did you even read that section of the constitution? It is clearly about what the government is allowed to do, not what it must do.

“The Congress shall have power…..

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

to declare war”

So if this section is not optional, then congress is required to always declare war whenever it can regardless of whether or not that’s a good idea.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

But of course most moral rights aren't recognized in the U.S

YOU :But of course most moral rights aren’t recognized in the U.S.

ME: really !?!?

Please explain.

Murder , theft , crime , is immoral and wrong.

Yes on human rights issues,, we are far from perfect, but getting better.

Drug laws are liberalizing too.

Where is the “most moral rights aren’t recognized in the U.S” ?
=====================================

Anonymous Coward says:

There's a big difference between self-regulation, which is consistent with freedom, and regulations imposed from a "sovereign," which leads to tyranny

“In is Constitution.”

And you fail to mention it is is a section of optional powers granted to congress. As in the government is not required to grant copyrights at all.

Anonymous Coward says:

still shilling?

Even America’s founding fathers didn’t believe in IP…

…that is a rather curious statement considering they all unanimously, and without debate, signed the Copyright Clause into effect at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, September the 5th. “Unanimous” and “without debate” being incredibly rare responses to nearly every other proposal under such proceedings.

Richard (profile) says:

Your Answer Mike.

OK, I will answer it for you, “independent invention” does not exist, for a start. By the very definition of “invention” means the first to come up with something.

Note “THE FIRST”, there is no prize for second, once SOMEONE invents something, its invented, no one else can invent it, mabey they did come up with the same idea at the same time, but all you can do is take their word for it.

Thank you. You have just proved that no one should be entitled to any patents ever.

There are millions of planets in the universe and statistically it is likely that there are many with intelligent life that has evolved in advance of us, and invented everything we have come up with already. So the human race has zero original inventions to its credit.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

I've followed a few of your discu

just saying I am wrong ,, w/o citing academic sources, is the word of a fool ,who cannot accept I am right.

Multiple people cited numerous documents proving you wrong. You insulted them in response.

Sorry this is my discipline

No. It is not. You are not an economist, nor a lawyer. You don’t seem knowledgeable on the facts of this discussion at all.

This is not your discipline, and every time you comment on it you show that by your ignorance.

I am qualified to teach these points at a college level.

If this is true, and to date, you have not shown any evidence that it is, I fear for the students you teach.

I you really want to debate me in a academically moderated forum ,, on copy right, laws moral , and philosophy . as related too,, Set it Mike ,, and I will be there.

I have debated actual people who are knowledgeable in the field. I do not waste time on people who are wholly ignorant of the basics. Sorry.

I don’t debate nobodies.

I will not respond to you further. There is clearly no use in doing so.

Anonymous Coward says:

still shilling?

You’re so wrong I have to laugh.

It has already been proven it was not without debate, as has already been show elsewhere in this thread James Madison viewed “ip” as evil monopolies and cautioned against careless granting of such monopolies. Thomas Jefferson also agreed that copyrights and patents were monopolies and not an “IP” right.

Anonymous Coward says:

they spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop drugs, and only a few pass all the tests and make it to market. without a profit motivation, what would their desire be to toss that sort of money around? answer: none.

My right to make copies is greater than your right to prevent me from making copies. Exhibit A: Reality.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

. It is not a "right" in any sense of the word, it is a legal suspension of natural rights and activities.

“. It is not a “right” in any sense of the word, it is a legal suspension of natural rights and activities. “

Ans : Do you have , a law , philosphy . or Poly-Sci degree?

What are your qualifications to say Copy right is a legal suspension of natural rights and activities?

Who agree with legal suspension of natural rights and activities? John Locke ? Ayn Rand ? Hobbs ? Calvin?

Who?

Site sources and quotes please.

start here :
http://www.answers.com/topic/inalienable-rights

Technopolitical (profile) says:

I've followed a few of your discu

http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/312/CommentKey:289870

Two professors debate copyright laws and the future. However neither supports abolishing it. ( I guess they could not find a sane person in academics who believes that )
Great read here ,, at a primer publication.

Please, any and everyone , READ it , before commenting,
will say you time.

Core quote from the debate moderator:

“As our debaters quickly acknowledged, and many of the comments from the floor confirmed, the matter is not quite so stark in practice: one can admit that existing copyright laws are terribly flawed yet conclude they do not “do more harm than good,” as the debate’s motion demands. “
————————–
from the same page :

Featured User’s Comment

Dear Sir,

Unfortunately ‘hope for the future’ and many other people confuse patent law with copyright law.

Also unfortunately, and ironically, both have failed to keep up with progress. Probably the single most important influence on copyright law, is the INTERNET.

Copyright law, and therefore copyright owners, MUST adapt to this fast changing ‘world’ society.

We are no longer restricted by geographical boundaries.

The only copyright laws that will work, are those that ALL jurisdictions are prepared to respect.

Remember, the moral reason for Copyright law is to provide some method of intellectual protection (and therefore opportunity for financial reward), to the creators of material, eg. novels, poems, music etc. but the implementation of the law has many other business implications which seem to have become more rewarding for groups other than the original creators and that is contrary to the original intention.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

www.economist.com /// Two professors debate copyright laws and the future. However neither supports abolishing it. ( I guess they could not find a sane person in academics who believes that ) Great read here ,, at a MAJOR ACADEMIC publication.

http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/312/CommentKey:289870

Two professors debate copyright laws and the future. However neither supports abolishing it. ( I guess they could not find a sane person in academics who believes that )
Great read here ,, at a MAJOR ACADEMIC publication.

Please, any and everyone , READ it , before commenting,
will save you time.

Core quote from the debate moderator:

“As our debaters quickly acknowledged, and many of the comments from the floor confirmed, the matter is not quite so stark in practice: one can admit that existing copyright laws are terribly flawed yet conclude they do not “do more harm than good,” as the debate’s motion demands. “
————————–
from the same page :

Featured User’s Comment

“Unfortunately ‘hope for the future’ and many other people confuse patent law with copyright law.”

“Also unfortunately, and ironically, both have failed to keep up with progress. Probably the single most important influence on copyright law, is the INTERNET.”

“Copyright law, and therefore copyright owners, MUST adapt to this fast changing ‘world’ society.”

“We are no longer restricted by geographical boundaries.”

“The only copyright laws that will work, are those that ALL jurisdictions are prepared to respect.”

“Remember, the moral reason for Copyright law is to provide some method of intellectual protection (and therefore opportunity for financial reward), to the creators of material, eg. novels, poems, music etc. but the implementation of the law has many other business implications which seem to have become more rewarding for groups other than the original creators and that is contrary to the original intention.”

Technopolitical (profile) says:

The Economist debate , was a major source of my points. All with academic , integrity.

Honestly , Mike,,, SIMPLY dismissive sentences,, no fact ,, not solid statements of principle.

No Academic Worthiness.

The congress men you Mike says quoted you , when you read the full quotes,, they are for stronger copyright protection.

The Economist debate , was a major source of my points.
All with academic , integrity.

All you offer are “simple dismissive statements”

As I told , another poster,

Mr. Spock had the same problem with many space aliens , there where too simple minded and blinded by false dogmas , to ever understand Mr. Spock’s perfect logic,

I got my own blog,

I an other will be watching .

History will be the judge.

Copyright Now,
Copyright Stronger.
Copyright Forever.

____-

How mike argues::::

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Monty Python : the “Argument Clinic “

———————————–

Congressman Doyle Gives Keynote Speech at First World’s Fair Use Day

Washington, DC – January 12, 2010 – U.S. Representative Mike Doyle (PA-14) gave the following speech this morning as keynote speaker at the First Annual World’s Fair Use Day:

Good morning.

………… [I]ve been reading about this on TechDirt, so Mike Masnick, please forgive me if I use your example, but I’ve noticed that Rupert Murdoch is furious at Google for this kind of fair use. He not only wants to block Google’s web crawling of his content, which he could legally do today if he wanted – but he wants the entire legal theory underpinning this activity overturned.

But it wasn’t until I saw TechDirt’s feature on the dozens of examples of other NewsCorp websites that rely on scraping other people’s content that I realized that Murdoch’s argument was flawed. Why do his own sites do it? Because it’s useful to readers, and if it’s useful, then readers will come back to the site more often, generating ads, generating revenue and so on.


The US Trade Representative is engaging in negotiations over a trade agreement that might have significant, harmful effects on the Internet and fair use. It’s called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you what’s in it because it’s still in negotiations and I haven’t signed a non-disclosure agreement.

===

And in their filing, the delegation made clear that “The United States is committed to***** both better exceptions in copyright law and better enforcement of copyright law.” *****
That’s exactly my belief, and I’m glad that’s the Obama Administration’s view. Copyright exceptions like fair use are important to our nation.

Gigi, thank you so much for inviting me here this morning. I hope you all enjoy celebrating World Fair Use Day.
===========================
http://doyle.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa14_doyle/20100112FairUse.shtml

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Honestly , Mike,,, SIMPLY dismissive sentences,, no fact ,, not solid statements of principle.

Honestly , Mike,,, SIMPLY dismissive sentences,, no fact ,, not solid statements of principle.

No Academic Worthiness.

The congressmen you Mike says quoted you , when you read the full quotes,, they are for stronger copyright protection. ( see below)

The Economist debate , was a major source of my points.
All with academic , integrity.
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/312/CommentKey:289870

All you offer are “simple dismissive statements”

As I told , another poster,

Mr. Spock had the same problem with many space aliens , there where too simple minded and blinded by false dogmas , to ever understand Mr. Spock’s perfect logic,

I got my own blog,

I an other will be watching .

History will be the judge.

Copyright Now,
Copyright Stronger.
Copyright Forever.

____-

How mike argues::::

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Monty Python : the “Argument Clinic “

———————————–

Congressman Doyle Gives Keynote Speech at First World’s Fair Use Day

Washington, DC – January 12, 2010 – U.S. Representative Mike Doyle (PA-14) gave the following speech this morning as keynote speaker at the First Annual World’s Fair Use Day:

Good morning.

………… [I]ve been reading about this on TechDirt, so Mike Masnick, please forgive me if I use your example, but I’ve noticed that Rupert Murdoch is furious at Google for this kind of fair use. He not only wants to block Google’s web crawling of his content, which he could legally do today if he wanted – but he wants the entire legal theory underpinning this activity overturned.

But it wasn’t until I saw TechDirt’s feature on the dozens of examples of other NewsCorp websites that rely on scraping other people’s content that I realized that Murdoch’s argument was flawed. Why do his own sites do it? Because it’s useful to readers, and if it’s useful, then readers will come back to the site more often, generating ads, generating revenue and so on.


The US Trade Representative is engaging in negotiations over a trade agreement that might have significant, harmful effects on the Internet and fair use. It’s called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you what’s in it because it’s still in negotiations and I haven’t signed a non-disclosure agreement.

===

And in their filing, the delegation made clear that “The United States is committed to***** both better exceptions in copyright law and better enforcement of copyright law.” *****
That’s exactly my belief, and I’m glad that’s the Obama Administration’s view. Copyright exceptions like fair use are important to our nation.

Gigi, thank you so much for inviting me here this morning. I hope you all enjoy celebrating World Fair Use Day.
===========================
http://doyle.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa14_doyle/20100112FairUse.sht ml

6 (profile) says:

“Except very little can actually be kept secret.”

Mike, you have very little idea how much in manufacturing can be kept secret. Even saying such a thing shows off your ignorance. You were like the business guys that used to come into the fab and look around and ask questions about sht that nobody cared about in the fab. You didn’t have the slightest clue about wtf the methods were that were being used in the fab. If you did you’d understand that they were closely gaurded company secrets save for the patents they’d take out on some of them. The same is true in all fabs.

“Darryl, I actually worked for Intel back in the 90s, so we’re on a subject I’m familiar with. As others have pointed out, Intel’s success was due to their *operations* and *manufacturing*. Intel’s fabs had much higher yield rates than their competitors. So even when AMD chips are technically better (as they sometimes are) the economics still works strongly in Intel’s favor. In other words, even in a world where Intel’s chip design is not protected, Intel is still likely to succeed due to their superior manufacturing.”

K, so you worked for Intel and say that their manufacturing was superior. What happens when their manufacturing isn’t “protected” via method claims in patents? What’s to stop AMD from copying their manufacturing methods? Intel would lock that sht up tight as they possibly could. And trust me, Intel has got some pretty nice sht in terms of manufacturing methods disclosed in patents that could have just as well become trade secrets that would have been VERY difficult, if not impossible to “reverse engineer”. If you think otherwise you’ve obviously never tried to reverse engineer microchip fab techniques. You might as well spend money on developing your own methods rather than spending time/money on reverse engineering theirs.

“Studies — mentioned on this site — have proven this claim to be totally false, so it’s pretty silly for you to make it. I believe the study found that in something like 90% of patent lawsuits, it was clear that the accused had no knowledge of the patent/invention in the first place.”

I believe that he was referring to them having seen the “other side’s” products etc. then having copied them. Whether or not they had seen the other side’s patent is not being discussed by him, to him it is irrelevant.

Now, Mike I agree with you that a lot of the things that are patented these days probably shouldn’t be, and I also agree that IP is unethical. It is, on it’s face, you guys don’t need to delve into philosophy or some nonsense to figure that out. But, on the other hand, if the public wants trade secrets to come out then it has either got to do away with trade secret law and get whatever scraps happen to fall out, or keep some sort of patent system. Note that under the non-patent system with scraps just falling out those would not usually be published and not categorized in any meaningful way both of which the patent system does provide.

Either way though, you need to keep yo sht straight man. With no patent system you’re going to have more trade secrets, unquestionably. And furthermore, if you took away trade secret laws then you’d have insane security at companies trying to accomplish trade secret’s without the law.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

I write a song. As soon as i play it in public, it is constitutionally protected.

“In other words, the constitution does not require the government to grant copyrights or patents, only allows it.”
YOU ::

ANS :Sorry WRONG. BIG TIME.

I write a song. As soon as i play it in public, it is constitutionally protected. Every Songwriter & Poet knows that.

It is our job and culture. You do not have to formally copyright.

Creation and public display AUTOMATICALLY protects.

Many folks send a copy registered mail to themselves, and it sets the date of COPY RIGHT fully and legal.

A Patent , MUST be applied for and granted. But the GOV’t MUST allow that process and protect the granted Patent.

BASIC Constitutional LAW principles there.

Civil Liberties 101, for non -majors

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

All property is “imaginary property”. There are no property rights in nature. There are no rights at all in nature. The entire bounty of law is the construct of men and men alone. You can deny it to your last breath but it remains empirically irrefutable.